> 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.)
Agreed. My preference is the sooner the better simply because any
client not following the documented convention is probably corrupting
the repository, and I would much prefer introducing new errors for
the client than having to go manually repair the repository.
I think the conversation has shifted from "is this a defect" to "when
should it be fixed", so maybe it is time to enter it in the issue
tracker. Should I enter an issue for this, or do svn developers
prefer to do that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 1 23:25:00 2004