Re: cvs commit: apr/network_io/win32 sendrecv.c sockets.c

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On 22 Jul 2004 01:48:35 -0000, stoddard@apache.org <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> stoddard    2004/07/21 18:48:35
> 
>   Modified:    .        CHANGES

===================================================================
>   RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/CHANGES,v
>   retrieving revision 1.483
>   retrieving revision 1.484
>   diff -u -r1.483 -r1.484
>   --- CHANGES   20 Jul 2004 03:31:57 -0000      1.483
>   +++ CHANGES   22 Jul 2004 01:48:34 -0000      1.484
>   @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
>    Changes for APR 1.1 [Deferring these features when 1.0 is rolled out.]
>   +  *) Win32: Fix bug in apr_socket_sendfile that interferred with
>   +     Win32 LSPs. PR 23982 [Jan Bilek, Bill Stoddard]

Bill, this probably sounds like a nit (because it is), but there is a
blank line after "Changes for <release>".  For some of us simple minds
(okay, just me), that looks really ugly in the context of entire file,
which has a blank line between every element.

On a slightly more interesting note, I committed something to APR HEAD
a few days ago and was faced with the question "darn, under what APR
release number do I put the CHANGES entry?"...  I put it under 1.0,
and if some subsequent 1.0 tarball doesn't include it I guess we need
a new entry for 1.0.1.  Does anybody know the right answer?

Re: cvs commit: apr/network_io/win32 sendrecv.c sockets.c

[David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>]

Bill Stoddard wrote:

> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> 
>> --On Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:30 AM -0400 Jeff Trawick 
>> <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On a slightly more interesting note, I committed something to APR HEAD
>>> a few days ago and was faced with the question "darn, under what APR
>>> release number do I put the CHANGES entry?"...  I put it under 1.0,
>>> and if some subsequent 1.0 tarball doesn't include it I guess we need
>>> a new entry for 1.0.1.  Does anybody know the right answer?
>>
>>
>>
>> Let the RM fix it.  ;-)
>>
> That was my exact thought.
> 
> Bill

Thanks guys :-)

So, my previous mail seems to have been eaten somewhere, but where do we 
stand on the apr-config changes?

I'd like to get RC5 then 1.0.0 out the door!

david

Re: cvs commit: apr/network_io/win32 sendrecv.c sockets.c

[Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> --On Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:30 AM -0400 Jeff Trawick 
> <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On a slightly more interesting note, I committed something to APR HEAD
>> a few days ago and was faced with the question "darn, under what APR
>> release number do I put the CHANGES entry?"...  I put it under 1.0,
>> and if some subsequent 1.0 tarball doesn't include it I guess we need
>> a new entry for 1.0.1.  Does anybody know the right answer?
> 
> 
> Let the RM fix it.  ;-)
> 
That was my exact thought.

Bill

Re: cvs commit: apr/network_io/win32 sendrecv.c sockets.c

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

--On Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:30 AM -0400 Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> On a slightly more interesting note, I committed something to APR HEAD
> a few days ago and was faced with the question "darn, under what APR
> release number do I put the CHANGES entry?"...  I put it under 1.0,
> and if some subsequent 1.0 tarball doesn't include it I guess we need
> a new entry for 1.0.1.  Does anybody know the right answer?

Let the RM fix it.  ;-)

IMHO, until 1.0 goes out the door, any changes should be under 1.0 as it is 
still a candidate for inclusion.  Once 1.0 goes out, we'll branch 1.0 and then 
HEAD identifies itself as 1.1.0.  (Perhaps, just maybe, after 1.0, we could 
consider going to Subversion which handles this whole branch thing way better 
than CVS.)  -- justin