On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_apache.org> wrote:
> On 09.01.2012 14:56, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>> Until we can change the minimum required version of APR, it just isn't
>> worth the hassle. -Hyrum
> We can change the minimum required version of APR any time we want,
> really. Our API versioning guidelines aren't /that/ set in stone. Sure,
> we'd have to announce that we plan to stop supporting apr-0.9.x long
> enough in advance, but since we already "support" two different ABIs,
> that's the same as saying we picked one ABI over another.
> Once we're down that road, we can pick, e.g., 1.3 instead of the latest
> release, and go with that.
I would *love* to do this, and have been arguing for it for years. I
always get rebuffed by the "0.9 isn't ABI-compatible with 1.x, so we'd
have to go 2.0" crowd. If we can reach consensus to finally do this,
I'm happy to help work out the details.
> For something like the filehandle cache, which is not a functional
> requirement, we can then use it if APR has it, or just not use it if it
Sure, and that jives with what we've done in the past. We can also
eventually bump the minimum APR requirements so that we can guarantee
the APR implementation exists.
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
Received on 2012-01-09 16:35:12 CET