You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2009/03/02 19:13:05 UTC
Re: svn commit: r749375 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in
trawick@apache.org wrote:
> Author: trawick
> Date: Mon Mar 2 17:40:33 2009
> New Revision: 749375
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=749375&view=rev
> Log:
> improve acceptance of APR/APR-Util trunk/2.0-dev
On my other comment earlier...
-1 on this patch appearing in any alpha candidate of 1.3 yet, for the
reasons I mentioned before. If it's sitting on trunk, that's fine, we'll
just break things again as 2.0 nears release.
Bill
Re: svn commit: r749375 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net <ma...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
>
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> trawick@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Author: trawick
> Date: Mon Mar 2 17:40:33 2009
> New Revision: 749375
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=749375&view=rev
> <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=749375&view=rev>
> Log:
> improve acceptance of APR/APR-Util trunk/2.0-dev
>
>
> On my other comment earlier...
>
> -1 on this patch appearing in any alpha candidate of 1.3 yet,
> for the
> reasons I mentioned before. If it's sitting on trunk, that's
> fine, we'll
> just break things again as 2.0 nears release.
>
>
> I meant - an alpha candidate of 2.3 yet ;-) My point being, due to
> the API contracts in APR, we should not be encouraging alpha testers to
> "install" 2.0. 1.3 is current and 1.4 branch exists for bleeding stuff.
>
> Bill
>
>
> I certainly agree for httpd 2.4.
>
> It is worth stating in the alpha announcements which apr level(s) they
> are intended to be used with.
>
> I doubt many people will worry if the alphas have code that enforces
> that, or fails haphazardly with other levels, or actually builds with
> other levels, as long as it works with the documented level(s).
Ok, I can see how, for the average user, we will bundle for now with 1.3 and
this change should break nothing (yet), so retracting my -1 so we simplify
the vote-in-progress :)
Bill
Re: svn commit: r749375 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> trawick@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> Author: trawick
>>> Date: Mon Mar 2 17:40:33 2009
>>> New Revision: 749375
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=749375&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> improve acceptance of APR/APR-Util trunk/2.0-dev
>>>
>>
>> On my other comment earlier...
>>
>> -1 on this patch appearing in any alpha candidate of 1.3 yet, for the
>> reasons I mentioned before. If it's sitting on trunk, that's fine, we'll
>> just break things again as 2.0 nears release.
>>
>
> I meant - an alpha candidate of 2.3 yet ;-) My point being, due to
> the API contracts in APR, we should not be encouraging alpha testers to
> "install" 2.0. 1.3 is current and 1.4 branch exists for bleeding stuff.
>
> Bill
>
I certainly agree for httpd 2.4.
It is worth stating in the alpha announcements which apr level(s) they are
intended to be used with.
I doubt many people will worry if the alphas have code that enforces that,
or fails haphazardly with other levels, or actually builds with other
levels, as long as it works with the documented level(s).
Re: svn commit: r749375 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> trawick@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: trawick
>> Date: Mon Mar 2 17:40:33 2009
>> New Revision: 749375
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=749375&view=rev
>> Log:
>> improve acceptance of APR/APR-Util trunk/2.0-dev
>
> On my other comment earlier...
>
> -1 on this patch appearing in any alpha candidate of 1.3 yet, for the
> reasons I mentioned before. If it's sitting on trunk, that's fine, we'll
> just break things again as 2.0 nears release.
I meant - an alpha candidate of 2.3 yet ;-) My point being, due to
the API contracts in APR, we should not be encouraging alpha testers to
"install" 2.0. 1.3 is current and 1.4 branch exists for bleeding stuff.
Bill