Paul Querna wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. > <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >> Graham Leggett wrote: >>> Paul Querna wrote: >>> >>>> I intend to roll a 2.3 alpha release on Wednesday November 11th. >> +1 >> >>>> I will bundle APR from the 1.4.x branch. (APR people should make a >>>> release, but this shouldn't be a blocker for our own alpha releases). >> Major problem; don't do this. You are putting 1.4.x code into a release >> which then ends up causing APR 1.4.0 to break its binary ABI rules. That >> is just not kosher. Some README or release notes observing that the best >> results can be obtained with a checkout and build of the as-yet-unreleased >> apr 1.4.x trunk is sufficient. >> >> If you want to 'test the bundling' - use a released apr please? > > No released APR works.
It works, but isn't code-complete or bug free; what else is new? > Under our own versioning guidelines, we can and will break > compatibilty inside 2.3.x, so I don't see the issue created by using a > bundled APR. > >>>> I am almost 90% sure the release might fail due to various issues, but >>>> we need to start cleaning those issues out. >> :) >> >>> Is there a need to bundle APR at all? >> Agreed +1 if APR is not bundled (this is alpha, after all). >> > > If APR had a 1.4.0 released, it would be viable, but it doesn't. Which is altogether irrelevant. http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html is the contract. By shipping (installing to /usr/lib/ or /usr/local/lib/, etc) you have started the clock. <hat role=chair> You also ask the HTTPD project to release "apr 1.4.0-dev", something which the APR project hasn't indicated they are ready for. There is nothing technically impossible about that, and you and the +1 vote crowd attest that you've reviewed the additions for soundness and all other incoming code concerns. And I don't doubt this has happened, knowing the overlap between the lists. But do understand this is a release of APR, as the ASF and applicable law all differentiate that from 'work product' (e.g. svn contents). </hat> I just suggest that tagging 1.4.0 at the same time is very little trouble if that's what you 'require', and let the results of that bundle alpha swim or fall based on the results of a 1.4.0 release vote at apr.
