At 04:02 PM 2/26/2003, Greg Ames wrote: >I'd like to do a minor MMN bump in the 2.0 stable tree to account for the >apr_file_open interface changing via the addition of APR_ENABLE_SENDFILE. It's not a >huge deal unless you're a 3rd party module with a handler that needs all the >performance it can get, ala mod_specweb99. I'm not too concerned about the 2.1 tree; >we can just piggyback on to one of the other recent MMN changes there. > >Q. Shouldn't this really be a major bump? >A. Strictly speaking, yes. But that would cause more headaches than it would solve. > >Can I get some votes on this, please?
It's absolutely not a major bump - that is - modules with or without the flags still *work*. We aren't breaking modules. Now if you flipped the bit definition that would be a bigger problem - but we already agreed that wouldn't happen - another flag would gain another new bit. In fact, I can't say that I see one reason to actually apply the bump. Running a module with the flag, on apr built at any point won't "break" the module. And APR isn't Apache. We shouldn't be bumping Apache, in any case, for this change. This is a change to APR (and I regularly cross two different APR and Apache versions for the best performance or the greatest reliability.) So I'd say no, no bump. We are about to tag 0.9.2 (or is that 0.9.3) in the next 24 hours to create a candidate. That APR version 0.9.2 (-gold) will tell you that your apr_file_open supports the new semantics. The hassle is that we've been using 0.9.2-dev and there is no way to distinguish the 'version' of apr between -dev and -gold. So I'm tempted to make this 0.9.3 and continue development on 0.9.3-dev till we are ready to call it 0.9.4. But that discussion is off-topic here ... snipping that bit for the apr list to continue the discussion there. Bill
