> -----Original Message-----
> From: stefan2_at_apache.org [mailto:stefan2_at_apache.org]
> Sent: dinsdag 19 augustus 2014 16:59
> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1618880 - in /subversion/trunk/notes/api-errata/1.9: ./
> fs001.txt
>
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Tue Aug 19 14:58:37 2014
> New Revision: 1618880
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1618880
> Log:
> Add an erratum for svn_fs_props_changed and svn_fs_contents_changed.
>
> * notes/api-errata/1.9
> (): New folder. It's the first erratum for 1.9.
>
> * notes/api-errata/1.9/fs001.txt
> (): New file.
>
> Added:
> subversion/trunk/notes/api-errata/1.9/
> subversion/trunk/notes/api-errata/1.9/fs001.txt
>
> Added: subversion/trunk/notes/api-errata/1.9/fs001.txt
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/notes/api-
> errata/1.9/fs001.txt?rev=1618880&view=auto
> ==========================================================
> ====================
> --- subversion/trunk/notes/api-errata/1.9/fs001.txt (added)
> +++ subversion/trunk/notes/api-errata/1.9/fs001.txt Tue Aug 19 14:58:37
> 2014
> @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
> +API ERRATUM -- $Id$
> +
> +Root Cause of Errata: implementation/docstring mismatch
> + Library(s) Affected: libsvn_fs_fs, libsvn_fs_base
> +Function(s) Affected: svn_fs_props_changed, svn_fs_contents_changed
> + New Behavior in: 1.9
> + Related Issues: n/a
> +
> +
> +== Details ==
> +
> +The docstrings for svn_fs_props_changed and svn_fs_contents_changed
> +did not state that these functions would only perform backend (BDB,
> +FSFS) specific quick checks. Moreover, the implementation of
> +svn_fs_props_changed would not only generate false positives as
> +svn_contents_changed did -- which could later be identified by the
> +caller -- but also false negatives.
> +
> +This behavior makes these APIs very hard to use inefficiently and
> +creates dependencies between implementation details and API users.
^^^
'Hard to use inefficiently'... so it was a well-defined efficient API?
Or was it too easy to use it in the wrong way?
Can you try rephrasing this line?
I need the rest of the explanation to understand what you really try to tell in this sentence.
Bert
Received on 2014-08-19 17:18:03 CEST