On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Paul Querna wrote: > When I counted the votes, I interpreted all of the +1s to be for the > entire group (apr, apr-util, apr-iconv). I am sorry if I misinterpreted > any of the votes. This was not my intention.
This is, I think, the real question, and one I was asking myself. Did we at some point decide to release the APR libraries *not* as a group? Why do we have different revisions of all three going out? Why did apr-iconv not go to 1.1.x when apr-* did? Anyway +1 to the approach of keeping what we have and pushing quickly to apr-iconv 1.1.0 to fix the problem at hand. I don't much care whether apr-iconv 1.0.2 continues to exist in the meanwhile or not. +1 to keep it, +0 to remove it. --Cliff
