On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 09:04 -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 16:46 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 08:18:51AM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 16:05 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 12:36:02PM +0100, David Reid wrote:
> > > > > So, apart from the complaints about apr-util, are people happy that
> > > > > apr
> > > > > RC5 is OK?
> > > >
> > > > +1, RC5 looks good to me. testall passes in both apr and apr-util on
> > > > RHEL3/{amd64,i686,ppc}, {RHEL2.1,FC1}/x86. If you roll an RC6 then
> > > > please pick up apr/test/testpoll.c:r1.34 which is needed to get the
> > > > tests to pass with the epoll-based poll backend on a 2.6 kernel.
> > >
> > > I thought the apr_pollset changes that add EPoll and KQueue support were
> > > not part of 1.0?
> >
> > Hmmm, well, they are in there, but CHANGES is out of synch, so one of
> > those things should be changed, I've no particular preference which.
> > Having CHANGES list 1.1 changes in the 1.0.0 tarball looks a bit odd
> > still.
> >
> > joe
>
> Hmm. It looks like the changes were picked up in RC5 only. RC4 did not
> have the pollset changes. Is this okay to release 1.0 with the pollset
> changes?
>
> -Paul Querna
Nevermind, David did mention adding it to RC5, I just didn't notice it
in his RC5 is Available Message.
-Paul
