On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 10:52, rooneg@tigris.org wrote:
> + Notes:
> + rooneg: This is worth it just so diffing between the branch and the
> + trunk doesn't show differences for every damn file ;-)
> jerenkrantz: For 1.0, we'll state that svn_client_ctx_t can only add
> members, correct? So, I'm not sure that adding the
> constructor buys us a lot - it's not opaque. *shrug*
> + rooneg: Yeah, it doesn't force people to 'do the right thing', but it
> + makes it possible for them to do so, and since 'the right thing'
> + is clearly documented I think that's enough. Plus, to make it
> + 100% bulletproof we'd need accessor functions and an opaque
> + structure, and people didn't like that when I originally did it
> + that way.
>From HACKING:
The STATUS file is not the place for discussion; use the dev mailing
list for that, and have the file point to the thread.
So, a "Notes" entry is something you feel compelled to attach your name
to, because other people might not agree with it, then it doesn't belong
there. Send mail to the dev list and include the URL of the mail thread
instead.
(I agree with HACKING on this point, because non-committers can't
participate in a discussion in the STATUS file. Also, the STATUS file
would grow too big.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 27 17:20:50 2003