On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > Paul Querna wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Graham Leggett wrote: >>>> Paul Querna wrote: >>>> >>>>> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th. >>> +1 >>> >>>>> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a >>>>> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases). >>> Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release >>> which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That >>> is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best >>> results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased >>> apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient. >>> >>> If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please? >> >> No released APR works. > > It works, but isn't code-complete or bug free; what else is new? > >> Under our own versioning guidelines, we can and will break >> compatibilty inside 2.3.x, so I don't see the issue created by using a >> bundled APR. >> >>>>> I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but >>>>> we need to start cleaning those issues out. >>> :) >>> >>>> Is there a need to bundle APR at all? >>> Agreed +1 if APR is not bundled (this is alpha, after all). >>> >> >> If APR had a 1.4.0 released, it would be viable, but it doesn't. > > Which is altogether irrelevant. > > http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html > > is the contract. By shipping (installing to /usr/lib/ or /usr/local/lib/, > etc) > you have started the clock.
I'm missing something... As long as this snapshot of APR says 1.4.0-dev, the versioning requirements are moot. Even the APR project will need to release something non-GA that hopefully looks a lot like the eventual first 1.4 GA release, but without version constraints until feedback from outside of the project is received. > <hat role=chair> > You also ask the HTTPD project to release "apr 1.4.0-dev", something which the > APR project hasn't indicated they are ready for. APR will never release -dev, right? And as far as svn checkouts or third-party snapshots, there's no promise that one APR 1.4.0-dev looks like another 1.4.0-dev. > > There is nothing technically impossible about that, and you and the +1 vote > crowd attest that you've reviewed the additions for soundness and all other > incoming code concerns. And I don't doubt this has happened, knowing the > overlap between the lists. > > But do understand this is a release of APR, as the ASF and applicable law all > differentiate that from 'work product' (e.g. svn contents). > </hat> > > I just suggest that tagging 1.4.0 at the same time is very little trouble if > that's what you 'require', and let the results of that bundle alpha swim or > fall based on the results of a 1.4.0 release vote at apr. > > > >
