On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Bill wrote: > > Change Process > > Most changes (bug fixes and minor, commonsense feature adds) do not > require review. Developers are encouraged to request review for: [] > - Changes to interfaces Changes that commit APR to one option out > of an exclusive set
IIUC, my crypto libs' linking changes, needed IMO for any sane implementation of the new PRNG, would match this case. We are probably already above the "request for review" state since r1833421 was veto-ed, though I disagree with the arguments put forward. So could the next step be: > - Any change the developer wants a second (or Nth) opinion on or does the veto imply that I should revert the commit anyway, with no further discussion and/or others' opinions? Thanks for letting me know because I don't want to (and won't) dispute indefinitely for a lost cause... Since I'm not really satisfied by the apr_crypto code in its driver/DSO shape, I can as well ignore it and move out the PRNG code to APR core (by copying a reference implementation of the needed crypto primitive, from public domain, and quite simple btw). Regards, Yann.
