Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > But I admit that this is harder to audit and is more likely to change at some > point of time to the usage of a pool.
More to the point, implementation of apr_ctime. The alternative of no error at all or no timestamp seemed worse, to me. Maybe an XXX comment on trunk to that effect? (I don't so much care about 0.9/1.2 which aren't moving targets, like trunk). > So you will get my votes (currently there seems to be svn issue where the > pre-commit hook always fails). Ditto. There's now an -r2.patch of the one you noted was incomplete for 2.0, so you can look at that, even though I can't provide the new link in STATUS right now. Bill
