kfogel@tigris.org wrote:
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1924
>
> Archie, I'm closing this issue not because of any technical problems with the
> patch (I haven't evaluated it), but simply because we try not to use the issue
> tracker as a archive of all patches.
>
> Our general procedure is to iteratively review patches on the development list,
> until someone can apply them. We only file an issue if there's some reason the
> patch has to wait until later, or if the review process is taking a long time
> and we want to make sure the patch doesn't get dropped.
>
> In your case, were there any responses to your post? Any comments from other
> developers? (Don't answer here, answer on the dev@ list, please.)
Hi Karl,
Closing the bug is fine. My patch was meant to be a short term solution
to be eventually replaced by the more complete keyword expansion changes
proposed by other folks. However, I didn't realize that my change, while
fairly minor, causes an API incompatibility, which means that it can't
really be "short term" because it would have to wait for a major release
anyway. So... nevermind.
This does make me wonder whether the API preservation requirement does
more harm than good, but that's a different question and not one for me
to answer :-)
Thanks,
-Archie
__________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jul 4 17:53:33 2004