> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Paul Querna wrote: > >> Another Place to Look is Bugzilla: >> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&email1=&product=APR&keywords=PatchAvailable >> >> I currently see 17 bugs with PatchAvailable for APR. Surely these should >> be considered out before any 1.0 release is made. > > Exactly. Those include serious bugs, and proven patches. > > We are now using a forked APR just to deal with bugs 28450 (a > showstopper) and 28453 (enhancement). I can't speak for other > bugs on that list, but it seems entirely possible others may have > been forced to fork for similar reasons. Doesn't this negate > much of the point of having a supposedly-standard package > in the first place?
I'm sorry you're in that position. I did say in an earlier email that if you have patches you think we've overlooked to remind us (in a gentle non-aggressive way devoid of injuries and blood preferrably). Thanks for doing that. If no-one else has a look by the time I have a network connection I'll look at these. Are there tests in the test suite that fail without these patches? Is it possible to construct a test to show this behavior? david
