Re: [PATCH] Re: The new svn_wc_adm_*_depth functions.

kfogel@collab.net wrote:
[snip]
>
> If we're going to fall back to the old names, then the "2" variants
> might make the most sense.
>
> IMHO, we should do this. By resetting our APIs back to the
> names-of-first-choice, we avoid names growing arbitrarily long (think
> 3.0).
>
> Thoughts?

It looks like an agreement is forming on the '2' variants (it sounds
reasonable to me) -- if there are no objections then I will wait another
day or so and update the patch to rename the functions with that scheme
and submit it for review?

DJ

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 12 06:43:30 2004