Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> writes:
> 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 :-)
Heh. I don't wonder -- I'm pretty sure it does more good than harm.
Remember, the harm is always easily visible: someone wants to
implement a feature or fix a bug, but they're hampered by the API
compatibility requirements. The pain there is palpable.
The good, on the other hand, is less visible, becasue it lies in what
*doesn't* happen: people don't experience nastiness when they upgrade
client or server, third-party programs using the Subversion APIs are
able to continue working, etc, etc. That pain *would* be palpable, if
it ever actually occurred -- but it doesn't, so people often aren't
aware of what they've been spared.
When 2.0 comes out (breaking compatibility) you'll see what I mean :-).
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jul 5 20:45:32 2004