Paul Querna wrote: > > I don't agree that we can't release a bundled unreleased version of > APR, we did this for many versions of httpd 2.0.x and 2.1.x. It > definitely isn't preferred, but that's the APR project's problem.
Look, your argument simply doesn't fly. In httpd 2.0 timeframe we were only shipping apr-0.9.x - it did NOT have the same API/ABI constraints (some of them, but not all). All of those intermediary releases kept the ABI rules of APR. Now that you have shipped immediately while ignoring my objection, I'll treat all +1's as binding no matter if they approved both of the pieces or not, and have tagged 1.4.0 of both apr and apr-util. We have no alternative, or else all author's VERSION_MAJOR/MINOR tests are invalid. It becomes up to the APR project if this aught to be 1.4.0 or burn a number and move on. For 1.4 initial release, I want to pick up Branko's fix, so I plan to label this 1.4.1. No intention of tagging apr-util yet till we decide if it can be API frozen, so if we dislike the current includes/ tree, it will end up being deprecated interfaces and version 1.5.0 already.
