Re: Remaining breakage on apr-1.7.x branch

William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel
Message-ID <CACsi253rtWK6VddC7MRjJZzM=aFri06FeUivhesO3t5L4ffPjQ@mail.gmail.com>
The links below didn't resolve as I expected them to, pay specific attention to

   include/apr_ring.h

delta between 1.7.0 tag and 1.7.x branch. I'll continue to try to coax github
to make an appropriate representation by following a link.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:58 AM William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello friends and collaborators,
>
> I'm still rather certain this change is ABI and API contract-breaking
> on the apr-1.7.x branch, which holds the project hostage for providing
> a well-understood security fix on the legacy branch. Such things
> can't persist, our individual maintenance branches must also observe
> semver, such that anyone could consume a maintenance branch and
> not be API nor ABI broken against the prior sub-version release;
>
> https://github.com/apache/apr/compare/1.7.0...1.7.x#diff-86c28ef8e95257a8d60ce73f3262290e91fc5ca3eb722144a6c99559ddf717cf
>
> I'd propose a radical solution, either all of include/* excluding most
> of private / arch/* have no adverse effects on a rebuild, or we revert
> the whole branch to the last stable release, in 7 days. Allow a 7 day
> window to reintroduce critical and desired changes that don't break
> our dev guidelines;
>
> https://apr.apache.org/versioning.html.
>
> All other questions were resolved at least 4 weeks ago, as can
> be observed from include/* changes which alter the incremental
> consumer's observations, github makes this simple;
>
> https://github.com/apache/apr/compare/1.7.0...1.7.x#
>
> So I think we are nearly ready 14 days from now to tag 1.7.1
> and solve this conundrum. If it can be proven than the existing
> 1.7.0 or 1.7.1 builds would be entirely compatible and not break
> developer's expectations when deployed against either 1.7.1
> or 1.7.0 in the next 7 days, my objection is withdrawn and we
> will tag this code in one week, not waiting for 2 weeks.
>
> Who wants to help prove up or down that it should persist and
> work out the back-out as needed? Otherwise I ask the project
> member's permissions to work from a new 1.7.x-rebuild branch
> for the following week based on 1.7.0, and replace 1.7.x with
> the 1.7.x-rebuild branch one week later.
>
> I hope none of us are looking to land in this quicksand again,
>
> Bill
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.