At 06:32 AM 12/7/2004, Julian Foad wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >>This simply isn't a good idea until 2.0. > >Does the project have a standard place to record proposed API changes for the >next major version so that they are not forgotten when that time comes? If >not, may I suggest putting this in the STATUS file under a heading like "For >version 2"?
Add an @bug to the doxygen comments for such functions, in the form of a patch. I don't remember if you answered Joe's question of which was the right answer - both use an apr_status_t or neither? Bill
