At 09:15 AM 9/19/2004, Greg Stein wrote: >On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 09:21:17PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> At 07:53 PM 9/17/2004, you wrote: >> >and the rename of apr_file_permissions group: >> > >> >s/APR_/APR_FILEPROT_/ >> >> Veto - defer for 2.0 > >There is no reason to wait until 2.0. The versioning guidelines allow us >to provide new symbolic names in 1.x versions. > >As long as APR_REG and friends exist in all 1.x versions, then everything >is fine. If 1.1 happens to include a new APR_FILETYPE_REG, then there >isn't a problem.
This is correct, yes. We need to first branch APR_1_0 development so such patches can be applied to cvs HEAD. >IOW, I'd encourage you to reconsider your veto. I don't see the problem >that you're trying to prevent. I'm retracting the vetos on these three renames, provided we apply them to APR_1_1, but I'm not 100% comfortable that our own devs want such wordy names. Is it wrong to have both shorthand and the strongly-typed equivalents? In any case, it would not be a good idea to rename these based on minority opinion. I'm +1 for less ambiguous names myself. Bill
