Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So my answer for this particular patch is: > > * -1 for now(*), pending introduction of the versioning > > * add a ref to the patch to the STATUS file for tracking > > * when versioning is doc'd and implemented, then we add it > > * httpd must specify *WHICH* version of APR(UTIL) that it wants; it is not > allowed to freeze the APR(UTIL) interfaces forever. Thus, it will say > something like 1.x as a requirement. Based on the vsn rules, it will > always be compat with that. at some point, it may need to say 1.x where > x >= 2 if it starts using new APIs which get intro'd in APR 1.2.
+1 on all of the above, sounds sane to me. -K
