Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
--On Thursday, January 02, 2003 11:34:50 -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Apparently this mental exercise didn't have the effects I had hoped. Jeff's patch is correct; it isn't APR's job to determine if one can 'open' a directory as a file. Opening a directory as a file is

Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread rbb
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 12:37 PM 1/2/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > >> In this case, I agree with Jeff's commit. I also disagree that you can > >> veto a veto (which I consider Jeff's reversion of this test

Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 12:37 PM 1/2/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> In this case, I agree with Jeff's commit. I also disagree that you can >> veto a veto (which I consider Jeff's reversion of this test to be.) >> >> It was introduced as a pedantic test to try to i

Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread rbb
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 09:56 AM 1/2/2003, Jeff Trawick wrote: > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Guys, this is ridiculus. If a test fails, the correct approach is not to > >> remove the test from the test suite. The hole point of the test suite is > >> to ensu

Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread Karl Fogel
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Apparently this mental exercise didn't have the effects I had hoped. > Jeff's patch is correct; it isn't APR's job to determine if one can 'open' > a directory as a file. Opening a directory as a file isn't portable, no, > but we can't "help" th

Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
At 09:56 AM 1/2/2003, Jeff Trawick wrote: ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Guys, this is ridiculus. If a test fails, the correct approach is not to >> remove the test from the test suite. The hole point of the test suite is >> to ensure that APR works the same on _ALL_ platforms. If it doesn't,

Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread rbb
On 2 Jan 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I disagree with pretty much everything you said. Revert the change > yourself if you really think your veto makes sense. I'll be damned if > I'm going to validate it by backing out the change. Perhaps instead we could

Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread Jeff Trawick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I disagree with pretty much everything you said. Revert the change yourself if you really think your veto makes sense. I'll be damned if I'm going to validate it by backing out the change. -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...

Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread rbb
On 2 Jan 2003, Karl Fogel wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There are two ways to resolve this bug. You can create a feature macro > > APR_FILE_OPEN_DIRS, which means that apr_file_open will work on > > directories, or you can make apr_file_open fail to open directories on > > Unix. In t

Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread Karl Fogel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There are two ways to resolve this bug. You can create a feature macro > APR_FILE_OPEN_DIRS, which means that apr_file_open will work on > directories, or you can make apr_file_open fail to open directories on > Unix. In the meantime, leave the failure in the test su

Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread rbb
On 2 Jan 2003, Jeff Trawick wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Guys, this is ridiculus. If a test fails, the correct approach is not to > > remove the test from the test suite. The hole point of the test suite is > > to ensure that APR works the same on _ALL_ platforms. If it doesn't,

Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread Jeff Trawick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Guys, this is ridiculus. If a test fails, the correct approach is not to > remove the test from the test suite. The hole point of the test suite is > to ensure that APR works the same on _ALL_ platforms. If it doesn't, then > it is just as hard to write portable pr

Re: cvs commit: apr/test testfile.c

2003-01-02 Thread rbb
Guys, this is ridiculus. If a test fails, the correct approach is not to remove the test from the test suite. The hole point of the test suite is to ensure that APR works the same on _ALL_ platforms. If it doesn't, then it is just as hard to write portable programs with APR as without. There

[STATUS] (apr-util) Wed Jan 1 23:45:56 EST 2003

2003-01-02 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
APRUTIL LIBRARY STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2002/09/13 23:15:22 $] Release: 0.9.2 : in progress 0.9.1 : Released as alpha on September 11, 2002 0.9.0 : Not released 2.0a9 : released December 12, 2000 RELEASE SHOWST

[STATUS] (apr) Wed Jan 1 23:45:29 EST 2003

2003-01-02 Thread Rodent of Unusual Size
APACHE PORTABLE RUNTIME (APR) LIBRARY STATUS: -*-text-*- Last modified at [$Date: 2002/12/10 20:32:40 $] Release: 0.9.2 : in progress 0.9.1 : released September 11, 2002 0.9.0 : released August 28, 2002 2.0a9 : released December 12, 2000 2.0a8 : re