kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "D.J. Heap" <dj@shadyvale.net> writes:
>
>>It looks like an agreement is forming on the '2' variants (it sounds
>>reasonable to me) -- if there are no objections then I will wait
>>another day or so and update the patch to rename the functions with
>>that scheme and submit it for review?
>
>
> Sounds good. Thanks!
After thinking about it some more, I still like the '2' variant idea and
then resetting them back to the normal name in a major version change --
but as a client it does seem a bit confusing. That is, the functions
that are marked deprecated are not actually going to be removed. In
fact, they will become the preferred function again with a slightly
different parameter list and the '2' variants (which were not
deprecated) will be removed.
I don't have a better idea, but it does seem a little odd to me. Maybe
just add a more detailed note about this to the doc comments or something?
DJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 12 16:38:46 2004