Re: Fwd: svn commit: r751555 - in /apr/apr-util/branches/1.2.x: CHANGES include/apr_ldap.h.in include/apr_ldap.hw

[Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>]

On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 19:57 -0400, Eric Covener wrote:
> It occured to me just after changing this macro that its addition
> broke versioning rules when it was added to 1.2.x post-release.
> 
> The new macro has already been in a release, 1.2.12.  Is it better to
> leave it or pull it?

The damage has already been done. No point causing it twice by pulling
it. IMHO etc.

-- 
Bojan

Re: Fwd: svn commit: r751555 - in /apr/apr-util/branches/1.2.x: CHANGES include/apr_ldap.h.in include/apr_ldap.hw

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Paul Querna wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 19:57 -0400, Eric Covener wrote:
>>> It occured to me just after changing this macro that its addition
>>> broke versioning rules when it was added to 1.2.x post-release.
>>>
>>> The new macro has already been in a release, 1.2.12.  Is it better to
>>> leave it or pull it?
>> The damage has already been done. No point causing it twice by pulling
>> it. IMHO etc.
> 
> I agree, but we need to be more vigilant about this in the future :(

Agreed, but you MUST @bug it in the doxygen that it is not a 1.2 API.

Re: Fwd: svn commit: r751555 - in /apr/apr-util/branches/1.2.x: CHANGES include/apr_ldap.h.in include/apr_ldap.hw

[Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>]

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 19:57 -0400, Eric Covener wrote:
>> It occured to me just after changing this macro that its addition
>> broke versioning rules when it was added to 1.2.x post-release.
>>
>> The new macro has already been in a release, 1.2.12.  Is it better to
>> leave it or pull it?
>
> The damage has already been done. No point causing it twice by pulling
> it. IMHO etc.

I agree, but we need to be more vigilant about this in the future :(