Re: ABI breakage

"Peter N. Lundblad" <peter@famlundblad.se> writes:

> Yeah, and then I think we can safely extend the struct.

Depends on your definition of safe, it is an ABI change and it is
trivial to write code that will be broken.

However the impenetrability of the libsvn_wc code is probably an
advantage for once! I suspect it's opaqueness means that there is
little, if any, outside code that manipulates the libsvn_wc data
structures. Does anyone know of any applications doing anything more
complex than calling the main svn_client_xxx/svn_wc_xxx functions? I
wonder if code generators might be affected? I suspect Swig only
really manipulates pointers and is thus OK.

As I noted before, the svn_ra_plugin_t already had an incompatible ABI
change in 1.1, so there is precedence for the svn_wc_entry_t change.
I think we might need to be more careful about our "binary
compatibility is guaranteed" claims.

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org