Re: SVN-DEV HELP NEEDED: What to do about the ra-get-log interface (Was: Clarification for paths argument to svn_ra_get_log2)

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:20 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:

> So, what to do? Do we explicitly allow absolute paths through all of our RA
> interfaces? (Please don't make inconsistent policy here and give per-method
> exceptions.) Do we stick with the published APIs and send our best wishes
> and a vase of flowers to folks who were previously misusing the APIs and
> have now been caught doing so?

I imagine you are trying to be helpful and sympathetic here to the
bzr-svn team, but don't we essentially have to stick with the
published API? It seems like we have always chosen that as our
answer, and I do not see why this would be different.

We do not want to get into a "Microsoft" situation here where we try
to support our bugs forever because we discover there are consumers
that depended on them in their usage of the API. I realize that is an
exaggeration since we would really just be expanding what the API can
do, but it is an unknown amount of new code to actually modify the
API's to support this new concept.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org