You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Lev Serebryakov <le...@serebryakov.spb.ru> on 2003/12/04 13:36:26 UTC
New release?
Hello dev,
Is here any plans for relesa separate apr-0.9.5 or even apr-1.0
distribution?
AFAIK, there was plans to release apr-1.0 at 19/Nov/2003...
Is here any new timelines, etc?
--
Best regards,
Lev mailto:lev@serebryakov.spb.ru
Re: New release?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>>> The only issue I know of which is presently considered a showstopper
>>> for 1.0 is fixing some of the atomic APIs to return a value.
>>
>>
>>
>> And fixing the broken condition variable implementation on Windows.
>> Sorry, I'm working on that, but very slowly due to lack of time...
>
>
> code bug or API bug?
>
Definitely code bug. The current implementation has more races than the
Formula 1 season. I have an almost-fix in my tree, but I'm still testing it.
Hm. Come to think of it, there's also a possible API enhancement that
could make condition variables optionally faster on Windows NT 4.0 and
higher, but would require a change in how we create thread mutexes.
It's just that I'm too sleepy to write it up now, and have no time until
Monday...
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
Re: New release?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Branko Čibej wrote:
>>The only issue I know of which is presently considered a showstopper
>>for 1.0 is fixing some of the atomic APIs to return a value.
>
>
> And fixing the broken condition variable implementation on Windows.
> Sorry, I'm working on that, but very slowly due to lack of time...
code bug or API bug?
Re: New release?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>
>> Is here any plans for relesa separate apr-0.9.5 or even apr-1.0
>> distribution?
>> AFAIK, there was plans to release apr-1.0 at 19/Nov/2003...
>> Is here any new timelines, etc?
>
>
> I dunno about 0.9.5.
>
> For 1.0:
>
> The only issue I know of which is presently considered a showstopper
> for 1.0 is fixing some of the atomic APIs to return a value.
And fixing the broken condition variable implementation on Windows.
Sorry, I'm working on that, but very slowly due to lack of time...
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
Re: New release?
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Dec 4, 2003, at 4:43 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>
>> Is here any plans for relesa separate apr-0.9.5 or even apr-1.0
>> distribution?
>> AFAIK, there was plans to release apr-1.0 at 19/Nov/2003...
>> Is here any new timelines, etc?
>
> I dunno about 0.9.5.
>
> For 1.0:
>
> The only issue I know of which is presently considered a showstopper
> for 1.0 is fixing some of the atomic APIs to return a value. I can't
> guess when this will be resolved, other than "sooner if somebody steps
> up to help come to conclusions or fix up/test the required code
> changes."
>
> There was a lot of focus on putting out a release back in November at
> Apachecon, but some nagging issues to resolve were re-discovered, and
> available time since then has been taken up resolving those issues
> instead of preparing a release.
I'd be glad to produce a release candidate 1.0 tarball that people
could use for testing
everything except the known atomic issues. Would that help ease some of
the pressure
of getting app code up to speed with the 1.0 API?
-aaron
Re: New release?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Is here any plans for relesa separate apr-0.9.5 or even apr-1.0
> distribution?
> AFAIK, there was plans to release apr-1.0 at 19/Nov/2003...
> Is here any new timelines, etc?
I dunno about 0.9.5.
For 1.0:
The only issue I know of which is presently considered a showstopper for 1.0 is
fixing some of the atomic APIs to return a value. I can't guess when this will
be resolved, other than "sooner if somebody steps up to help come to
conclusions or fix up/test the required code changes."
There was a lot of focus on putting out a release back in November at
Apachecon, but some nagging issues to resolve were re-discovered, and available
time since then has been taken up resolving those issues instead of preparing a
release.