On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:55 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Can anyone get mod_lbmethod_rr.c to build? >>>> >>> >>> That's funny actually. The very first version README.cmake in trunk >>> says that mod_lbmethod_rr.c doesn't build on Windows >>> >> >> When I added the .dsp, it certainly did build. --enable-mods=all should >> be >> triggering the build of those sources. >> >> I think this illustrates that we have played fast and loose with >> something that >> 1. is a public API, 2. not experimental, and 3. was illustrated with an >> example >> that has been frequently broken by Major ABI changes. >> >> If devs want to promote an API and then continuously break ABI on trunk, >> I'm way beyond arguing with such individuals. Just a few choice examples >> which had necessitated major MMN bumps that did not receive one... >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1560081 >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1477649 (no >> bitwise-alignment assurance) >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1436919 (no >> bitwise-alignment assurance) >> >> However, this module appears to have been broken prior to 2.4.1 GA with >> this >> at least this commit... >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1209958 >> ... which tells me it is simply an abandoned example. >> >> I propose we remove it from 2.4.x branch and trunk, rather than >> pretending >> we have maintained it? >> > > +1 for removing from 2.4.x branch > > no arguments here if someone actually wants it to hang around in trunk, > but I don't actually know if anybody cares so no vote on trunk ATM... > I agree, this discussion is only about 2.4.x branch for the imminent T&R. If I have a third +1 for removing this horridly wrong example/, I'll commit in the next 2 hours. If there is disagreement later, we can always revert. Bill
