> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 01:35:06PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>...
>> > Can we fix it in 2.0? Sure. No reason that a 1.0 release prevents
>> that.
>> > And, we might be able to fix it in 1.1, but it depends how we handle
>> the
>> > specific
OK, so the time has come for another push, the final push, to get 1.0 out
the door. We've tried this before and haven't ever managed to get to a
point whereby we have a broad agreement that what's in the repo is 1.0 -
so this time I'm going to suggest we try something a little different :-)
Jeff h
All,
I noticed that APR doesn't (yet) support IP multicast. Is anyone working
on this? If not, I'll consider tackling it. I can write UNIX/Linux (but
I don't have access to many flavors), Mac OS X, and Windows (maybe)
implementations and tests for multicast for APR.
Regards,
--Eric
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 01:35:06PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >...
> > > Can we fix it in 2.0? Sure. No reason that a 1.0 release prevents that.
> > > And, we might be able to fix it in 1.1, but it de
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 01:35:06PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>...
> > Can we fix it in 2.0? Sure. No reason that a 1.0 release prevents that.
> > And, we might be able to fix it in 1.1, but it depends how we handle the
> > specifics. However,
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Thursday, June 3, 2004 9:53 AM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Dude, the API _can't_ work. This isn't a matter of being able to slap a
> > fix on it. The locking API isn't portable, and until it is changed in
> > some way, can't be made
--On Thursday, June 3, 2004 9:53 AM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dude, the API _can't_ work. This isn't a matter of being able to slap a
fix on it. The locking API isn't portable, and until it is changed in
some way, can't be made portable. So, either we rip out the whole locking
Can we fix it
Here is a pointer to the e-mail:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apr-dev&m=107940423312808&w=2
Ryan
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Amit Athavale wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>The damned locking API can't work portably as things stand today. It
> >>>wasn't designed to be portable, and it was never tested in a port
The damned locking API can't work portably as things stand today. It
wasn't designed to be portable, and it was never tested in a portable
manner. I posted a possible solution for this, but got no feedback at all
on my idea. I don't have the time to work on this right now, but
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Thursday, June 3, 2004 7:17 AM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The damned locking API can't work portably as things stand today. It
> > wasn't designed to be portable, and it was never tested in a portable
> > manner. I posted a possible
--On Thursday, June 3, 2004 7:17 AM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The damned locking API can't work portably as things stand today. It
wasn't designed to be portable, and it was never tested in a portable
manner. I posted a possible solution for this, but got no feedback at all
on my idea. I do
Paul Querna wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 06:27 -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Who is going to do anything about these showstoppers and when? If no action, I
don't see why they should be considered showstoppers.
Another Place to Look is Bugzilla:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_stat
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Who is going to do anything about these showstoppers and when? If no action,
> I
> don't see why they should be considered showstoppers.
They are showstoppers because they break the library. If they aren't
breaking the library, then they probably aren
On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 06:27 -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Who is going to do anything about these showstoppers and when? If no action,
> I
> don't see why they should be considered showstoppers.
>
Another Place to Look is Bugzilla:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug
Who is going to do anything about these showstoppers and when? If no action, I
don't see why they should be considered showstoppers.
From the STATUS file:
RELEASE 1.0 SHOWSTOPPERS:
* apr_global_mutex_child_init and apr_proc_mutex_child_init aren't
portable. There are a variety of problems
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:46:15AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> On 2 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > jorton 2004/06/02 01:27:43
> >
> > Modified:test testsock.c
> > Log:
> > * test/testsock.c (setup_socket): Return NULL if bind fails, fixing
> > test suite h
APRUTIL LIBRARY STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2003/03/31 05:32:43 $]
Release:
0.9.3 : Tagged March 30, 2002
0.9.2 : Released March 22, 2002 (alpha)
0.9.1 : Released September 11, 2002 (alpha)
0.9.0 : Not released
APACHE PORTABLE RUNTIME (APR) LIBRARY STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/05/24 08:44:37 $]
Release:
0.9.3 : tagged March 30, 2003
0.9.2 : released March 22, 2003
0.9.1 : released September 11, 2002
0.9.0 : released August 28, 2002
2.0a9
18 matches
Mail list logo
