At 03:12 PM 3/17/2005, Cliff Woolley wrote: >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?
I was totally confused by this a while ago. I mistakenly tagged 0.9.6 apr-iconv because the team had tagged 0.9.6 apr and apr-util. Of course, there were no code changes between 0.9.5 and 0.9.6, but I too missed this memo. The bottom line, to the group that choose to start releasing disjoint apr/-util/-iconv tarballs, is that you can no longer call a vote on apr and expect it to mean -util and -iconv anymore. I don't have an issue with all three on their own release cycles, but you can't assume that 'apr' means all three when you were an instrument of uncoupling the three.
