On 08/23/2007 10:13 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 4:05 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> Ruediger Pluem wrote: >>> >>> But I admit that this is harder to audit and is more likely to change >>> at some >>> point of time to the usage of a pool. >> >> More to the point, implementation of apr_ctime. The alternative of no >> error >> at all or no timestamp seemed worse, to me. Maybe an XXX comment on >> trunk >> to that effect? (I don't so much care about 0.9/1.2 which aren't moving >> targets, like trunk). > > Yeah, the conditions and assumptions on which this > is based warrant some comments in the code :)
+1 Regards Rüdiger
