Re: RFC: API Compatibility Concerns

John Peacock wrote:
> a different patch (the special file handling) has already added a
> compatibility layer to one of the functions which I needed. So, if I
> were to bring up my patches again, it would require a second layer of
> compatibility functions, which is not that big a deal as long as the
> project is /open/ to that.

That is fine by me, for the time being (that is, until we do a more careful
assessment of what functions belong in the public API).

> If I were to bring my patches up to date now, would I get grief from
> people that adding a third iteration of svn_subst_copy_and_translate
> would "muddy" the API.

I haven't noticed any such resistance from project members yet. Some other
APIs have already reached version 3. Not that I think it's good to keep
changing the API - but just that that's what we're doing at the moment.

It sound to me like the "keywords as a hash" patch is a good thing. Please do
update and submit it a way which introduces the new version and deprecates the
old version but keeps compatibility.

Re. managing API changes: you sound like a person who could make some useful
comments on the "bool recurse" vs. "int depth" issue that I just sent a
separate mail about.

- Julian

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 15 17:59:39 2004