On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 02:20:27PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > Which is exactly why we should table the time discussion until > we have a versioning system *enforced*. > > Aaron has explicitly veto'd any changes to apr_time_t that cause > broken binary compatibility (i.e. changing the meaning of > apr_time_t but not the API). Whether I agree or disagree doesn't > matter. It's a valid veto and I've spent too much time arguing > (and then agreeing) with Aaron about this. > > The one thing we agreed upon was that if we have the versioning in > place, then we can do whatever we want to apr_time_t since the app > has a way of knowing that binary compatibility isn't met. > > So, let's get versioning enforced, and then we have a mechanism for > breaking (or enhancing) apr_time_t. And, at this point, I don't > care much what happens to apr_time_t. My only requirement is that > if it changes and we don't bust the API, then we have to bump the > version. -- justin
Thank you and well said: Huge +1 -aaron
