At 07:34 PM 2/23/2005, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote: >On Feb 23, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> >>That's been 'broken' forever and it's only because Subversion 1.2 wants to >>use private mod_dav functions. > >They're not private mod_dav functions. They're supposedly a public API, meant >to be used by mod_dav "provider" back-ends. They just weren't all declared >'public' in win32-land, that's all.
Uhm, no. By that definition, all the pollution spewed from typical Linux libraries would be considered 'public api.' Other platforms are using the construct to extract public symbol lists now, IIUC. APR_DECLARE (DAV_DECLARE, etc)is our shorthand of what has been publicizied and what is internal. >> I don't see how that justifies blocking a beta. > >Agreed. But it should block GA. Actually, it should (if it can be fixed in these few days) be part of the 2.1.4. I'm a little curious - I understood we would tag an ALPHA, decide if it was 'good enough', then call it BETA. I certainly don't think that the last tarballs were good enough for that. So please, Ben, get us your patch to 2.1-dev - that's what that tree is for, to make sure our module developers will be as happy with the next release as most users inevitably are. And we will discuss how it can be backported if it can. [I suspect it can, but requires an MMN minor bump as a 'new feature' was added, and it will be the consumer's responsibility, e.g. svn, to spell out that 2.0.xx is required. We advertise everywhere that since mid 2.0.4x all of our builds are binary compatible, and we won't be changing that for feature pushes.] Bill
