On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 10:32:04AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 03:26:48PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 10:12:41AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > > My only advice would be to reach a point where we accept no one is going to
> > > step up and fix this on Windows and then decide accordingly. If we can fix it
> > > for Linux without making Windows any worse, then I would think we should do
> > > that. I do not see why we cannot leave the tests failing on Windows. Again,
> > > as long as we have not made Windows any worse, if some future APR update were
> > > to make the tests pass that sounds like a good thing.
> > >
> > > As long as we know why the tests fail, that seems acceptable to me. If we
> > > cannot fix Linux without making Windows worse than it is with 1.13 then that
> > > is different and more complicated for sure.
> >
> > I cannot really judge the impact on Windows. Apparently, the change
> > breaks things on Windows because APR's code doesn't work properly there.
> >
> > Let's wait a bit and see if developers involved will speak up.
>
> I'm working on it now. I should be able to have something that avoids
> regressions on Windows this weekend.
Done in r1875230.
Cheers,
--
James
GPG Key: 4096R/91BF BF4D 6956 BD5D F7B7 2D23 DFE6 91AE 331B A3DB
Received on 2020-03-16 05:26:32 CET