I think we basically agreed to keep 0.9 at stasis. And expected the next major prereq jump after 1.x at 2.0.
I'm not worried about maintaining support, but we should have a serious dialog about going all Unicode/NT and ripping out all of the Win 32-bit 9x code in the 2.0 trunk, and choosing a new baseline at that point. I know some have built APR ANSI for their own purposes, and it is a point we will have to ponder. In the interim, the api function wrappers should allow us to keep the ipv6 binding you mention as an optional function. That's the course I'd prefer in the short-term, are you willing to hack that up to keep the old stuff running? If no-one is willing then it really has to be abandoned sooner. On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:42 PM Gregg Smith <g...@gknw.net> wrote: > I finally got time to give this 1.7.0 a try and utterly failed :) > > r1839494 fixed a problem run into on VC when r1816608 added support for > IPv6 link-local address scope/zone mapping. r1839494 requires NT6. > > Our apr.hw is still targeting NT5 which has been EOL for eons now, 6.0 > also as Vista and Server 2008 went EOL years ago. 6.1 goes EOL next year > but what does everyone think about changing that default in apr.hw from > 0x0501 to 0x0601 or 0x0600 at minimum? > > I do not remember if a PMC vote was required when we went from 400 to > 500 to 501. > > Cheers, > > Gregg > > > > On 2/27/2019 3:06 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > With several new features added to the 1.7 branch, the fixes to the > > Netware locking we had deferred, and the proposed correction of > > SIGUSR2, I'm wondering what we see as remaining obstacles. > > > > I'd like to proceed with addressing the symlink vs. "other" reparse tag > > questions raised for Windows, and will make the time to get the current > > patch proposal and my type safety cleanups into trunk. PR 47630. > > > > I'm also interested in fixing SFU issues of the Ubuntu on Windows > > implementation with APR locking, and can dedicate a few hours > > this weekend to look at where those errors stand. > > > > Do we want to do something about de-prioritizing sysv semaphores > > on linux by default with the 1.7.0 release? > > > > Any other concerns ahead of 1.7.0? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Bill > > >