kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> writes:
>>> Doesn't r10904 change an API by adding a pool (svn_utf_initialize)?
>>>
>>> If so, then it can't happen in a patch release.
>>
>> That change is catching up with the new signature *already* in place
>> on the 1.1.x branch as of r10877.
>>
>> So, all is ok.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Is there some reason we did things in that order, instead of the more
> usual trunk-first order?
Once the function signature had been decided on, the 2 changes were
essentially independent, to the point of being handled by different people!
The branch change was the application of a patch from an issue, not the
merge of a trunk revision.
The branch change was quite simple ( a placeholder ), whilst the trunk
change was quite a bit more complex. Therefore they happened in the order
they did.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Sep 12 02:13:33 2004