Re: svn commit: r169705 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: include/util_ldap.hmodules/ldap/util_ldap.c

[Brad Nicholes <bn...@novell.com>]

So I guess I am confused.  Are you saying that we *can* release 1.2 or am I stuck with putting LDAP SDK #ifdef code back in util_ldap in order to fix this problem?

Brad

>>> chip@force-elite.com Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:56 PM >>>
Brad Nicholes wrote:
> Is there an issue with backporting this change to 1.1.x branch 
> and releasing a apr-util 1.1.3?

Yes, According to APR's versioning policy:
http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html 

"Versions are denoted using a standard triplet of integers:
MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH. The basic intent is that MAJOR versions are
incompatible, large-scale upgrades of the API. MINOR versions retain
source and binary compatibility with older minor versions, and changes
in the PATCH level are perfectly compatible, forwards and backwards."

Since 1.1.3 would be a PATCH version, you cannot add a new symbol, since
this would break both binary and source backwards compat.  The first
version that could contain this new symbol is 1.2.0.

Since APR/APR-Util are still very closely tied to HTTPD, I think we can
justify releasing APR more often.

-Paul

>>>>wrowe@rowe-clan.net Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:28:19 PM >>>
> 
> At 05:52 PM 5/11/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
> 
> 
>>I believe we should uphold the policy of using only released versions of
>>a dependency.
> 
> 
> +1, however...
> 
> 
>>I don't see an APR-Util 1.2.0 coming very soon. The APR-DBD code could
>>still use more love.
> 
> 
> Why not?  Looks like apr_dbd should simply be pushed off to
> apr_util release 1.3.0 and get the other fixes and features
> out the door, perhaps.
> 
> 
>>This is just an example of why I wanted to branch trunk to 2.1.x.  I
>>have nothing against adding this specific feature  -- it just happens to
>>require a non-released version of APR-Util.
> 
> 
> -1 for this specific purpose; I always saw httpd-2.2 as addressing
> only the handful of things we never did quite finish in 2.0.  Those
> being the auth reorg, auth ldap, proxy and cache.
> 
> If httpd-2.2 can really be boiled down to this small subset - I would
> very much like to see this work adopted.  If it means creating a dbd-less
> apr_util 1.2.0 then so be it. Thoughts?
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: svn commit: r169705 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: include/util_ldap.hmodules/ldap/util_ldap.c

[Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>]

Brad Nicholes wrote:
> So I guess I am confused. Are you saying that we *can* release 1.2 or
> am I stuck with putting LDAP SDK #ifdef code back in util_ldap in
> order to fix this problem?

I am saying we can release APR-Util 1.2 -- but that discussion belongs
on apr-dev.

I think the best solution right now is to #ifdef it.

I don't think it should be reverted.  The point of trunk is to always be
open for commits and new development.