[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r31084 - branches/1.5.x

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 15:22:28 -0400

Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_tigris.org> writes:
> In this case, I agree that the test is not strictly necessary for 1.5.x,
> since svn_path_is_canonical is a trivial wrapper around
> svn_path_canonicalize, and the latter is already tested.
>
> svn_boolean_t
> svn_path_is_canonical(const char *path, apr_pool_t *pool)
> {
> return (strcmp(path, svn_path_canonicalize(path, pool)) == 0);
> }
>
> In general, however, I assumed that tests for an API that made it to
> a release branch should be backported to the branch (whether or not the
> API is new in that branch).
>
> Stefan Sperling also questioned the backport over IRC this afternoon;
> following discussion I moved the nomination to 1.5.1. Does this address
> your concerns?

Well, my concerns were more along the lines of "Is this worth porting to
1.5.x at all?" Since svn_path_is_canonical() is new in 1.5, there's a
better argument for porting this test than most tests; however, it's
still going to get tested on trunk (1.6, 1.7, etc) all the time anyway,
so I personally don't think it's worth the porting overhead.

But it's a judgement call. I'm not asking you to remove it from STATUs,
just reminding that porting comes at a cost (in reviewing/voting, and in
merging by whoever does the merge), so let's not go overboard.

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-08 21:22:42 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.