On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 13:18, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> This change was on trunk, so aren't we deprecating in 1.2?
No, r10835 was made in response to the nomination and approval of r10467
and friends into 1.1. Quoting from the erstwhile STATUS entry:
Note:
HEAD as of r10734 shows the new functions as "since 1.2.0" and the
deprecated functions as "preserving the 1.1.0" API. If these candidates
are approved, then a new trunk revision, marked rXXXXX above, should
also be applied to reflect that the changes were actually included
in 1.1.0.
UPDATE: r10835 is that trunk revision. Since the notional rXXXXX has been
here throughout the voting process, adding in the real revision does not
invalidate the votes.
> I don't understand this.
mbk committed r10467. He didn't expect his change to make it into 1.1,
so he said his new functions were new in 1.2 and (in r10734) deprecated
the old ones as preserving the 1.1 API. (You would argue that he should
have deprecated the old ones as preserving the 1.0 API, but I disagree,
as I argued in my previous message in this thread.)
After the esr thread, mbk nominated r10467, making a note that if it was
approved, the comments should be changed appropriately. The nomination
was approved, and r10835 is the comment fix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Sep 8 21:11:27 2004