On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 03:26:48PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 10:12:41AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote: > > My only advice would be to reach a point where we accept no one is going to > > step up and fix this on Windows and then decide accordingly. If we can fix > > it > > for Linux without making Windows any worse, then I would think we should do > > that. I do not see why we cannot leave the tests failing on Windows. Again, > > as long as we have not made Windows any worse, if some future APR update > > were > > to make the tests pass that sounds like a good thing. > > > > As long as we know why the tests fail, that seems acceptable to me. If we > > cannot fix Linux without making Windows worse than it is with 1.13 then that > > is different and more complicated for sure. > > I cannot really judge the impact on Windows. Apparently, the change > breaks things on Windows because APR's code doesn't work properly there. > > Let's wait a bit and see if developers involved will speak up.
I'm working on it now. I should be able to have something that avoids regressions on Windows this weekend. Cheers, -- James GPG Key: 4096R/91BF BF4D 6956 BD5D F7B7 2D23 DFE6 91AE 331B A3DB
