Re: [UPDATED] was Re: [POST 1.0 task] Custom Keywords - Issue 890

Daniel L. Rall wrote:

>>> I have to say that _I_ think the APR versioning guidelines are too
>>> restrictive for an application (but understandable for a library).
>>
>>
>>
>> Subversion *is* a library to some of us.

And I am not arguing that. I am only saying that the entire project is being
bound by guidelines that best apply to a restricted portion of the project (the
shared libraries).

>
>
> I was going to say the same. The number of tools being built up around
> the core Subversion libraries and default commandline client is
> staggering, and that number will only continue to grow as Subversion
> gains popularity, an inevitability given the release of 1.0 final.
> Applying rigorous versioning guidelines Subversion Just Makes Sense.

To be specific, the patch that plasma created and I brought up to date does not
change the external interface of the commandline client in the slightest. It
doesn't even alter the perceived behavior of the existing keywords. It just
alters the internal storage and processing of those keywords.

It _does_ alters the calling signature of three functions (two to just append a
pool) and adds a new function. Because of this, it will require stub wrappers
before it could be considered for 1.1.0. It is seems especially clumsy to have
to add wrappers to provide a pool entry version; would it have been such a bad
thing to provide an optional pool entry on all/most functions' call stack?

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD  20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org