On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Hyrum K Wright wrote on Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 21:47:12 -0600:
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 13:20:29 +0100:
>> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> >> > Could you have a look? (attached)
>> >> Nice. It looks good to me (haven't tested it, just looked at the code;
>> >> I assume it passes with trunk?)
>> > Thanks, yes, r1068749.
>> > While I'm here, in light of the truncation bug in diff3 earlier today,
>> > how about adding a warning to svn_diff_diff4_2() family of API's to the
>> > effect of "@warning This code is experimental"?
>> How much more experimental is it than other recent code we've added to
> (no known callers, only one unit test)
>> (And I hope that such an appellation would be only temporary;
>> experimental code close to a release is a Bad Thing. Johan is working
>> hard to fix whatever Badness there may be.)
> The experimental code is svn_diff_diff4_2(); AFAIK svn_diff_diff4() is
> as stable as ever.
I have no objections on adding such an annotation. However, from where
I'm sitting, svn_diff_diff4() is/was just as under-exercised as
svn_diff_diff4_2(), i.e. no known callers, only one unit test (thanks
for adding that test, BTW). Of course it's into the codebase a lot
longer than *_2, but it has never had any core code calling it, and no
unit tests (so could have been broken by any number of commits after
its inception till now).
Received on 2011-02-09 08:43:17 CET