On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Bill wrote:
>
> Change Process
>
> Most changes (bug fixes and minor, commonsense feature adds) do not
> require review. Developers are encouraged to request review for:
[]
> - Changes to interfaces Changes that commit APR to one option out
> of an exclusive set
What is this email about?
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:43 PM William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> *Change Process*
>
> Most changes (bug fixes and minor, commonsense feature adds) do not
> require review. Developers are encouraged to request review for:
>
>- Large changes affecting many files
>- Cha
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> Since I'm not really satisfied by the apr_crypto code in its
> driver/DSO shape, I can as well ignore it and move out the PRNG code
> to APR core (by copying a reference implementation of the needed
> crypto primitive, from public domain, an
It seems we have a lot of revert activity on trunk, relating to OpenSSL
init, which is becoming hard to follow. It would be good if we start off
major changes on the dev@ list for discussion first, which should help
avoid some code churn.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 05:17 Greg Stein wrote:
> What is
Giving this problem some thought...
If an aprfoo-1.so provider is linked to the libfoo.so library, and we track
the init state and perform it only once, it seems that apr should never try
to de-init or unload the .so provider for the lifespan of the process.
This should help us avoid some redunda
Thanks for the explanation. Your OP said nothing about that, so was "hard
to follow".
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:19 AM William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> It seems we have a lot of revert activity on trunk, relating to OpenSSL
> init, which is becoming hard to follow. It would be good if we start off
> m
