On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Joe Orton wrote:
> Or if it does, -1 veto on either bumping the APR major version or
> creating a branch or making toast with jam before Allan submits a patch
> for review on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Okay, well, that means that for progress to be made, some form of patch
needs to ge
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:36:25PM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > To be clear, I'm perfectly happy with merging to trunk in Allen's changes
> > *once* completed and reviewed and moving trunk to 2.x if need be - but I
>
> Nevertheless, the questio
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 01:29 PM 11/24/2004, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I'm sick of all talk and no action. We tried this last year when we were
"almost" ready to branch APR 1.0 and all action on that front ceased
entirely for a YEAR. This time it's
At 01:29 PM 11/24/2004, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>I'm sick of all talk and no action. We tried this last year when we were
>"almost" ready to branch APR 1.0 and all action on that front ceased
>entirely for a YEAR. This time it's one or the other. I'l
At 01:05 PM 11/24/2004, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Allan - your last patches were to try to -wedge- the current
>> API into httpd. Can you share the patch just to fix APR?
>> Then we can start to comprehend scope. NO CASTS - just the
>> correct dec
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> To be clear, I'm perfectly happy with merging to trunk in Allen's changes
> *once* completed and reviewed and moving trunk to 2.x if need be - but I
Nevertheless, the question at hand is what action to take RIGHT NOW.
"Let's just wait for..." with
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:29 PM -0500 Cliff Woolley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm sick of all talk and no action. We tried this last year when we were
"almost" ready to branch APR 1.0 and all action on that front ceased
entirely for a YEAR. This time it's one or the other. I'll wait
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Oh, please don't. We have *no* idea what the changes are or whether we'll
> even ultimately accept them. Please branch Allen's changes off in a
> sandbox (cp trunk branches/64-bit-changes) - let him get a workable version
> that we can then review,
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Garrett Rooney wrote:
I guess I'm just arguing for a single branch that's the target of the
current development, as opposed to one 64 bit dev branch and one trunk
which holds other changes, thus requiring us to either invest constant
effort in merging chan
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:20 PM -0500 Cliff Woolley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So sure, screw it. APR trunk is now 2.0-dev. Have fun.
Oh, please don't. We have *no* idea what the changes are or whether we'll
even ultimately accept them. Please branch Allen's changes off in a
sandb
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> I guess I'm just arguing for a single branch that's the target of the
> current development, as opposed to one 64 bit dev branch and one trunk
> which holds other changes, thus requiring us to either invest constant
> effort in merging changes from the
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Allan - your last patches were to try to -wedge- the current
API into httpd. Can you share the patch just to fix APR?
Then we can start to comprehend scope. NO CASTS - just the
correct declarations in the first place.
Since t
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Allan - your last patches were to try to -wedge- the current
> API into httpd. Can you share the patch just to fix APR?
> Then we can start to comprehend scope. NO CASTS - just the
> correct declarations in the first place.
Since this is obviou
At 12:29 PM 11/24/2004, Allan Edwards wrote:
>If we can make good progress towards a stable 64 bit APR 2.0 then
>moving httpd 2.1/2.2 to it could make sense. The question is
>whether there is enough feature freeze pressure to say that
>64 bit does not warrant the wait...
Allan - your last patches
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Allan Edwards wrote:
> First order of business now that we are on SVN is to focus on
> the APR changes that are needed. It's not clear to me though,
> now that we have an APR 1.0 branch, is the trunk open for
> API-breaking changes or do we need a separate branch for that work
man, how did I get so far behind on my email...
I'd like to see us get this into httpd 2.2 for the reasons
previously outlined and think we need to get the work underway
as quickly as possible to determine how extensive the changes
are going to be and how fast progress can be made.
First order of b
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Yes - I understand that this means 1.x will never be used by
> httpd. Version numbers are cheap. The APR project should
> become used to this, if they are active, and httpd moves at
> it's normal pace, it would be easy to go through APR 2.x, 3.x
At 11:08 AM 11/22/2004, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Yes - I understand that this means 1.x will never be used by
>> httpd. Version numbers are cheap. The APR project should
>> become used to this, if they are active, and httpd moves at
>> it's norma
At 10:08 AM 11/22/2004, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>>
So, my opinion is that we let Allen branch apr off now and let him go at it
at a measured pace, but we
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
So, my opinion is that we let Allen branch apr off now and let him go at it at a measured pace, but we shouldn't intend to hold httpd 2.2 for that. -- justin
+1. Of cour
At 12:37 PM 11/20/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>The other alternative is a 'fixed' subset of the httpd API that
>we simply don't touch. At least so it's APR compat if not ABI
>compat.
s/APR compat/API compat/
At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>This kind of brings up an idea that's been sloshing around between
>that handful of neurons in my noggin: Some sort of API "seed"
>program within httpd/apr where we put a little more effort in
>getting the latest API versions out there.
The other alte
At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>
>>So, my opinion is that we let Allen branch apr off now and let him go at it
>>at a measured pace, but we shouldn't intend to hold httpd 2.2 for that. --
>>justin
>
>+1. Of course, I am assu
On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't believe that Allen would be able to complete his changes in a
reasonable timeframe. I'm tired of holding things up for a 'major'
rewrite that'll come any day now (TM). Sorry. I'd be willing to give
him a week or two to make the ch
At 11:03 PM 11/19/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Friday, November 19, 2004 8:01 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL
>PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I'll offer compelling argument. Allen offered patches, which
>>Roy vetoed, to fix object sizes on 32/64/64 ILP bit platforms,
>>and told Allen to g
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 8:01 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll offer compelling argument. Allen offered patches, which
Roy vetoed, to fix object sizes on 32/64/64 ILP bit platforms,
and told Allen to go back and fix APR.
That is the right answer, branch APR 1
26 matches
Mail list logo