Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 00:17, Bert Huijben <bert_at_vmoo.com> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Hyrum K. Wright [mailto:hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:26 PM
>>> To: svn_at_subversion.tigris.org
>>> Subject: svn commit: r35439 - in trunk/subversion/bindings/swig: .
>>> python/libsvn_swig_py ruby/libsvn_swig_ruby
>>>
>>> Author: hwright
>>> Date: Fri Jan 23 13:26:16 2009
>>> New Revision: 35439
>>>
>>> Log:
>>> Fix the swig bindings after r35424.
>>>
>>> * subversion/bindings/swig/core.i,
>>> subversion/bindings/swig/svn_wc.i,
>>> subversion/bindings/swig/svn_delta.i,
>>> subversion/bindings/swig/svn_fs.i:
>>> Include apr_md5.h in place of svn_md5.h.
>> If this breaks our build, it probably breaks third party tools too?
>>
>> I like the idea of the public header cleanup, but I'm not sure if we can do
>> this without breaking third party code.
>>
>>
>> While it is not part of the ABI, the header files are certainly part of our
>> public API.
>
> I thought about that, and am somewhat torn. You're right in that a
> source change is now needed ("add another #include"). But I'm also
> thinking, "well... you used something from a header, and didn't
> include it. fix the bug in your code."
>
> All of our APIs and ABIs are the same. All that is changed is our
> delivery of them to developers.
>
> Thoughts?
eh, just call it a bug, tell people to fix their code and to recompile if they
wish to do so.
-Hyrum
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1048076
Received on 2009-01-25 03:29:53 CET