Re: [RELEASE CANDIDATES] Status ?

Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> this one time in band camp Issac Goldstand said on 10/29/06 01:41:
>> If you're planning on rolling libapreq-2.09 soon, maybe we should 
>> include the intial work done in /branches/enhanced-cgi/ 
>> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/apreq/branches/enhanced-cgi/>
>> It seems stable at the moment.
> Hi, yes, it looks interesting, but please keep replies on list.
Sorry.  Hit reply instead of reply-all...
>
> Also, you need to update the
> include/apreq_version.h
> *_VERSION #defines.
> [You should do this on _EVERY_ commit]
>
Gotcha.  Thanks.  I guess this is what comes of work tearing me away 
from apreq a couple of weeks after getting voted in as a committer :-/  
Hopefully, I'll be able to remedy that now that I'm working on 
Apache-based projects again.
> Sadly, I don't think this can go into the 2.x series because of our 
> conversioning rules.
> New features need new symbols.  SVN gets around this by doing:
> void foo (void)
> void foo2 (int)
Can you elaborate?  I didn't understand that bit.

  Issac