On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 16:46 +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >>> EITHER (a) a client of the subversion libraries like any other, hence a
> >>> mod_dav_svn should work with libsvn_* libraries of the same, _or any
> >>> greater_ 1.x version - e.g. 1.2.x mod_dav_svn with 1.3.x libsvn_* libs.
> >>>
> >>> OR (b) an integral part of the core subversion code, and thus should
> >>> only
> >>> be used as part of a matched set of equal-versioned components.
> Ummm.... What on earth?
> I asked expecting to receive a quick confirmation: "(a), obviously".
> Now I've taken the time to think it through, I realize that it absolutely
> has to be (a) without question, because that is a natural consequence of our
> compatibility rules, unless we do something dastardly like use supposedly
> library-private APIs in mod_dav_svn.
You're certainly not going by my understanding of the compatibility
rules, nor do I consider it dastardly to use double-underscore symbols
between libraries.
If it's so dastardly to use double-underscore symbols like this, what
should we do when we need to add a new libsvn_subr API to fix a bug, and
want to backport that bug to a previous release? In the past, we've
converted the new API to a double-underscore symbol. I don't think I've
seen you or Karl address this point so far.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Oct 9 18:26:11 2005