Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, April 12, 2005 4:28 PM -0400 Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was also under the impression that all branches of APR were CTR.
However, I agree that discussion on API changes would be good, even in a
CTR system. That has always been the basic
At 05:34 PM 4/13/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, April 12, 2005 4:28 PM -0400 Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I was also under the impression that all branches of APR were CTR.
However, I agree that discussion on API changes would be good, even in a
CTR system. That has
--On Tuesday, April 12, 2005 4:28 PM -0400 Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was also under the impression that all branches of APR were CTR.
However, I agree that discussion on API changes would be good, even in a
CTR system. That has always been the basic idea with CTR -- you can
Paul Querna wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 01:38 PM 4/12/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: pquerna
Date: Tue Apr 12 11:38:21 2005
New Revision: 161087
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=161087
Log:
Backport apr_reslist_timeout_set and apr_reslist_invalidate.
These functions
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Paul Querna wrote:
I believe APR 0.9.x is under CTR.
I was also under the impression that all branches of APR were CTR.
However, I agree that discussion on API changes would be good, even in a
CTR system. That has always been the basic idea with CTR -- you can
commit
