Re: [Libevent-users] To upgrade or not to upgrade - that is the question

2010-08-19 Thread Christopher Layne
On Aug 19, 2010, at 1338 PT, Nicholas Marriott wrote: I haven't done much with 2.x, but personally a two way core/extra split seems just fine. IMO splitting things into a twenty pieces or adding a dozen --disable-foo options just makes things confusing and hard work for developers, packagers an

Re: [Libevent-users] To upgrade or not to upgrade - that is the question

2010-08-19 Thread Nicholas Marriott
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 04:05:32PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 04:27:47PM -0700, Gilad Benjamini wrote: > >> > >> What are the major benefits of 2.0 ? > > > > From my point of view, a lot of convenience code

Re: [Libevent-users] To upgrade or not to upgrade - that is the question

2010-08-19 Thread Nick Mathewson
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 04:27:47PM -0700, Gilad Benjamini wrote: >> >> What are the major benefits of 2.0 ? > > From my point of view, a lot of convenience code was added which many > large programs already written to the libevent 1.4 A

Re: [Libevent-users] 1.4.13 (and lower): bug in configure: kqueue test-case w/ x86_64

2010-08-19 Thread Nick Mathewson
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Christopher Layne wrote: [...] > Just by adding a simple "memset(&ev, 0, sizeof ev)" above the initial ev > struct assignments we're doing in the test-case, I see the following > results: [...] > The reason I think this is kind of an annoying bug is that if compi