On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 15:46, Ben Reser wrote:
> I'm not sure. I can see both arguments. On one hand our documentation
> says you're supposed to do this conversion already so us erroring out
> wouldn't be necessarily unexpected, provided we can do so with an
> existing error message that makes sense.
>
> But on the other hand it's not behavior that we're exhibiting now.
This is a specific instance of the general case of "tightening" an API:
enforcing a restriction which was previously documented but unenforced.
I'd say that tightening an API is not great fodder for a third-number
release (1.0.1) because we want those releases to be absolutely safe to
apply. I think it's a judgement call whether tightening is good fodder
for a second-number release (1.1.0); it depends on how much we expect
things to break in ways people care about. I'd say this instance
belongs in 1.1, but could be swayed if I learned about a bunch of people
relying on the lax behavior of the current code. (If I understand the
problem right, they would have to be people using file:// or svn://
rather than http://, and they would have to be using non-UTF8 log
messages with a UTF8 locale.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 1 22:19:56 2004