> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 27.11.2015 15:59, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> On Nov 26, 2015, at 8:49 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> In any case — I don't think anyone over at [email protected] would object to APR
>>> including those functions. We actually have a number of other, heh,
>>> improvements on APR that we could "donate"; we just never really got
>>> around to producing the necessary patches.
>> Yeah, svn is in the same situation as httpd. There are
>> some functions would "ideally" would exist in APR,
>> but APR doesn't move "fast enough" to allow that to
>> happen, so both projects start collecting APR-like
>> kruft after awhile...
>>
>> It certainly would be nice if there was someway to address
>> that...
>
> Uh, what I wrote is in no way intended to be a criticism of APR. Maybe
> if people who think APR isn't moving fast enough spent their time
> writing code here instead of writing mails about it, this "problem"
> would just vanish. At least, that's my understanding of how open source
> is supposed to work -- right, Jim? ;)
Gosh! You are right! Gee whiz, I haven't had any substantial code added
to APR since 1.5.1. Thanks for reminding me! I really feel completely
and utterly unworthy to comment on or criticize APR in any meaningful
way and I offer my heartfelt apologies to everyone on this thread
for wasting their time on a thread which started off as a suggestion
for a new function to be added to httpd but, I noted:
I propose a ap_strncasecmp/ap_strcasecmp which we should use.
Ideally, it would be in apr but no need to wait for that
to happen :)
which, at least how I read it, implies code to be added to APR
in the ideal case. But that is besides the point, as Brane so
correctly says! Instead of writing emails about code to be
added, we should instead be writing the code itself, which,
of course, will be accepted in as-is with no discussion whatsoever,
since, heck, that's kind of what's going on here, but as Brane
reminds us all, such a thing is a problem that will magically
disappear the more we write code!
I propose that no message be allowed on the dev@apr list unless
a 15-line patch or code contribution is attached. This will
solve the nasty problem! In fact, maybe we should just shut down
dev@apr since it encourages such unconstructive behavior as "writing
emails" when we instead should be head's down cranking out code
that may, or may not (usually not) be added and used before the
end of the decade.
