[Last resend...]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 21:28:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Peter N. Lundblad <peter@famlundblad.se>
To: kfogel@collab.net
Cc: Peter N. Lundblad <peter@famlundblad.se>, dev@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: Speeding up blame
On Mon, 24 May 2004 kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "Peter N. Lundblad" <peter@famlundblad.se> writes:
> > > > A new RA function can go into 1.1, as long as no interfaces are taken
> > > > away.
> >
> > I don't understand this. If we add a new function pointer to the rA
> > vtable, then any RA implementation that is done for 1.0 will be
> > ABI-incompatible with 1.1. Or isn't the compatibility guarantees about
> > ABI?
>
> Can't we add new functions to the end of the table, due to C's
> guarantees about structure member ordering and alignment? I presume
> these guarantees apply even to structures of function pointers...
>
Yes. My concern here was addressed in an earlier post.
> (In which case this work does not need to be done on a branch.)
>
My current plan is as follows:
1) Implement a svn_repos function to get all revisions of a file where the
contents or properties are changed.
2) Extend the RA vtable with a new function pointer.
3) Implement the new functionality ra_local.
4) Rewrite the client blame code to be able to test the new repos
functionality.
5) Extend ra_dav and ra_svn with the new functinality.
I don't think I can do this without having a broken blame for some access
methods for a period of time. Wouldn't it make sens to do at least 2-5
above in a branch, so I don't break everyones blame. Also, I don't think
this functionality should hold back 1.1. It would make *me* more confident
to use a branch, at least.
Regards,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 25 21:55:27 2004