On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:12:30AM +0100, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Especially now that we went GA on 2.0, we should meet to discuss
2.1 or 3.0... Waiting until Nov will just suck. -- justin
I'm going to get a gun now! :) Before talking about
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, there are a number of issues that I think we'd need to hash
out before thinking about what comes next. Should we open 2.1
now? I don't think so. But, should we in three or four months?
Perhaps - it depends how 2.0 goes.
Good... You scared
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Well, there are a number of issues that I think we'd need to hash
out before thinking about what comes next. Should we open 2.1
now? I don't think so. But, should we in three or four months?
Perhaps - it depends how 2.0 goes.
I think we also need a more solid
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:13:31PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
We have never before frozen an API, and I would prefer that we didn't
freeze this one. If an API needs to change, then it should be allowed
to change. The important thing is that we don't change APIs just for
the sake of changing
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
My concern is that when we make all of the renames to APR (or
any other changes), we'll be killing our third-parties who tried to
Simple renames I can handle. That's what apr_compat.h is for. Other
changes should be much more scrutinized IMO.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:13:31PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
We have never before frozen an API, and I would prefer that we
didn't
freeze this one. If an API needs to change, then it should be
allowed
to change. The important thing is that we don't change APIs just
for
the sake of
