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

Re: svn commit: r1186791 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS

From: Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:49:30 +0400

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 17:26, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum.wright_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:18 AM,  <ivan_at_apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: ivan
>> Date: Thu Oct 20 13:18:02 2011
>> New Revision: 1186791
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1186791&view=rev
>> Log:
>> * STATUS: Cast a -0 vote for the r1185746 change.
>>
>> Modified:
>>    subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS
>>
>> Modified: subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS?rev=1186791&r1=1186790&r2=1186791&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS (original)
>> +++ subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS Thu Oct 20 13:18:02 2011
>> @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ Candidate changes:
>>    Fix up some erroneous "Could not frob some targets because..." warnings.
>>    Votes:
>>      +1: stsp, rhuijben
>> +     -0: ivan (breaking ABI even for private function is not good thing for
>> +               patch release)
>
> I don't understand how this is breaking ABI.  The only function
> signature that changes in r1185746 is this:
>
[..]
>
> That's a binary-private function, completely within the command line
> client. It doesn't cross any library boundaries. We make these types
> of changes frequently in patch releases, which makes me a little
> confused as to the reasoning behind your -0.
>
Oops, my fault. I was thinking this function cross library boundary.
I'm going to remove my -0 vote. Thanks!

-- 
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2011-10-20 15:50:24 CEST

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