On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 09:31:04PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: > A few developers keep suggesting "we need to break things" > > Nobody has ever provided a compelling example since the polls API change. > And stubbing old functions certainly shouldn't be "getting in the way" of > further progress twords a stable 1.0, should it? Or better asked, is it? > Would you provide an example of a change that must occur?
I tried to fix apr_generate_random_bytes() to use size_t already. I'd also like to reorder struct apr_sockaddr_t to make it binary compatible across !APR_HAVE_IPV6 and APR_HAVE_IPV6, which requires breaking binary compatibility with 0.9.2. joe
