On 15.12.2009 19:23, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: >> Clearly we aren't going to get agreement by repeating the same arguments >> back at each other, so let's vote on this and move on to doing something >> useful. > > I've demonstrated the technical rational to this argument, you can't > demote a technical veto to an opinion through a vote. > > I completely agree that APR is not responsible for httpd's mess. I'm only > pointing out that the vast majority install apr from a packager (no trouble) > or from an httpd package (therein lies the trouble).
Sorry but I don't get this. If there were some product lets call it Trouble Server that would ship always with recent apr 1.4.x snapshots or even trunk snapshots and would install them during its installation procedure, would that force us to cast the current trunk API in stone? Or take it one step further. I want to harm APR and each time there is an API change in trunk I publish a product that ships with this trunk snapshot, does this force us to burn another release number in APR? Regards Rüdiger
