Edmund Horner wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
> > Edmund Horner wrote:
> >
> >> Greg Hudson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 02:01, Edmund Horner wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> However I have added svn_libname__version() functions for the plugin
> >>>> libraries.
> >>>
> >>> Pointless and messy. Until such a time as the vtable work is done to
> >>> make it possible to query an FS or RA module's version after
> loading it,
> >>> don't add any symbols like this.
> >>>
> >>> (There's no urgency to doing this work, since the RA/FS ABI
> version will
> >>> serve in the meantime.)
> >>
> >> Righty ho.
> >>
> >> I have removed the svn_libname__version() functions from svn_fs_base,
> >> svn_fs_fs, svn_ra_local, svn_ra_dav.
> >>
> >> The function svn_ra_svn_version() function remains, since it is
> >> checked by svnserve/main.c. Does that sound ok?
> >
> >
> > Um. I said in my previous post that I disagree. I think these functions
> > should go in, and so should the version check changes in the vtables.
> > And there's no need to change the vtables first.
> >
> > -- Brane
>
> Okay, I'm a little confused about what needs to be done. Does this mean
> the second patch was (relatively) acceptable, even with the plugin
> version functions not in the vtables?
It was for me. Greg Hudson and I disagree, as usual -- you simply got
caught in the crossfire. :-)
If he doesn't actually veto your second patch, I'll commit it as is.
Then I'll start work on the vtables.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 6 18:14:24 2004