I think we basically agreed to keep 0.9 at stasis. And expected
the next major prereq jump after 1.x at 2.0.
I'm not worried about maintaining support, but we should have
a serious dialog about going all Unicode/NT and ripping out all
of the Win 32-bit 9x code in the 2.0 trunk, and choosing a new
I finally got time to give this 1.7.0 a try and utterly failed :)
r1839494 fixed a problem run into on VC when r1816608 added support for
IPv6 link-local address scope/zone mapping. r1839494 requires NT6.
Our apr.hw is still targeting NT5 which has been EOL for eons now, 6.0
also as Vista
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:59 PM William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
>
> One obvious flaw I had missed in my earlier list, the problem with
> maintainer mode strictness and our APR_OFF_T_FMT warnings.
>
> I think the patch is as simple as prioritizing int over long... which
> would be the same logic already
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:19 PM William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
>
> I'd like to give this question a few more days, and finally lock down
> our 1.7.0 candidate sometime later next week.
>
One obvious flaw I had missed in my earlier list, the problem with
maintainer mode strictness and our APR_OFF_T_FMT
