On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 07:48:02PM -0600, William Rowe wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > > 1) the httpd project cannot force the APR project to commit to API > > stability by distributing a snapshot of the APR 1.4 branch. Why on > > earth would that be the case? The only time the APR project commits to > > API stability is by making a new .0 release itself. What other projects > > do is irrelevant to APR. > > Joe, as I pointed out in another thread, httpd *does* commit apr the moment > the mislabeled artifact hits www.apache.org/dist/ - where does that package > suggest it is nothing but a snapshot? The answer is, it doesn't. > > When we did this previously in httpd 2.0 (never 2.1 to the best of my > recollection) we actually did commit to that particular apr API. The > rules in 0.9 just weren't so draconian. > > If you don't like any of these rules; > > * what is on /dist/ is a release > * what is released apr >= 1.0 follows absolute versioning rules > * what is a snapshot doesn't appear on /dist/ > > then take those issues to an infra/board level. We've had these discussions > a thousand times on incubator lists, and this is a clear case of what is > good for the goose...
This is all fine and good but I don't see any implication above that the APR project must enforce its versioning rules on anything other than releases *it voted on* - i.e. releases of APR, rather than releases of httpd. What and how the APR project chooses to apply API stability rules is something decided by the APR project, not the board or infra. Do you disagree with that? If you think we need to amend apr/README to describe how the APR versioning rules apply to the APR project, so be it, but I think you are making an Everest-sized mountain out of a molehill here. Regards, Joe
