Thanks brian... add my vote, and move fielding's to make it absolutely

  clear this is a seperate alternative.


git-svn-id: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk@63646 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/STATUS b/STATUS
index 2f1b33464..cd827f03d 100644
--- a/STATUS
+++ b/STATUS
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 APACHE PORTABLE RUNTIME (APR) LIBRARY STATUS:			-*-text-*-
-Last modified at [$Date: 2002/07/12 22:10:38 $]
+Last modified at [$Date: 2002/07/12 22:26:59 $]
 
 Release:
 
@@ -86,14 +86,15 @@ CURRENT VOTES:
       3) Renaming the function to get rid of apr_time_t vs time_t confusion,
          and strongly identify the type as apr_busec_t or apr_butime_t, with
          an ongoing contract with users about the type's units.
-         +1: fielding  [prefers apr_busec or simple time_t / struct tm]
+         +1: fielding  [prefers apr_busec]
          +0.5: wrowe,  [prefers apr_time_busec_t and apr_span_busec_t]
                brianp  [can live with apr_time_busec_t and apr_span_busec_t]
          -0: striker, jerenkrantz
          -0.5: rbb, ianh, dreid
 
-      4) Using time_t and struct timeval
-         -1: brianp
+      4) Using time_t and struct timeval/tm
+         +1: fielding
+         -1: brianp, wrowe
 
       [fielding: Is APR time guaranteed to be a scalar quantity?  If so,
        then we must include units as part of the definition of the