On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > On 09.01.2012 14:56, Hyrum K Wright wrote: >> Until we can change the minimum required version of APR, it just isn't >> worth the hassle. -Hyrum > > We can change the minimum required version of APR any time we want, > really. Our API versioning guidelines aren't /that/ set in stone. Sure, > we'd have to announce that we plan to stop supporting apr-0.9.x long > enough in advance, but since we already "support" two different ABIs, > that's the same as saying we picked one ABI over another. > > Once we're down that road, we can pick, e.g., 1.3 instead of the latest > release, and go with that.
I would *love* to do this, and have been arguing for it for years. I always get rebuffed by the "0.9 isn't ABI-compatible with 1.x, so we'd have to go 2.0" crowd. If we can reach consensus to finally do this, I'm happy to help work out the details. > For something like the filehandle cache, which is not a functional > requirement, we can then use it if APR has it, or just not use it if it > doesn't. Sure, and that jives with what we've done in the past. We can also eventually bump the minimum APR requirements so that we can guarantee the APR implementation exists. -Hyrum -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com/