Ryan Bloom wrote:
I don't understand why this is still being discussed. The patch makes sense, it solves a real problem and just needs to be committed and tested. +1 on adding it to 1.0.0RC5 so that we can get the release out.
OK by me. I did debate just including the patch and rolling, but figured I'd give it another airing first...
However, we need to remove the APR_STATUS_IS_SUCCESS macro before 1.0 goes
out, because otherwise we are stuck with it for a very long time.
There were win32 comments from Brane? Is someone going to commit the changes needed?
david
Ryan
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:29:14 +0100, Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Reid wrote:
The whole "release 1.0" movement seems to have run out of steam, so I propose that I'll just T&R what we have as RC5 and then if it works everywhere it'll be 1.0.0.
Personally I think that releasing without the apr-config stuff in place would be a mistake, but there seem to be too many people raising obstacles to that for it to be sensible to wait. :(
It seems there is more apathy than obstacles.
Note that NO ONE has actually objected to any part of my patch except whether the modified APR_FIND_FIND should have a mandatory or optional extra argument!!!
Please, people, its a pretty simple patch, and it's a very important for sane packaging.
Given the emphasis APR has placed on well-defined version compatibility, publishing a defined set of rules, it would be a very great shame for 1.0.0 to actively hinder packagers from handling correct versioning of APR.
So, please, review!
Max.
