[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: problem revealed by issue #2398 (server-side assertion)

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2006-02-27 19:55:05 CET

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> Because it's sort of an accident of convenience that the parameters of
> svn_fs_merge *can* even refer to two different memory FS objects. It's
> just a convenience that roots refer back to the FS they belong to, and
> you could imaging the svn_fs API requiring an fs parameter on every
> function.
>
> We have no cross-FS operations, and so every libsvn_fs function should
> only be worrying about dealing with one FS object. svn_fs_merge as it
> is implemented today may have very few concerns operating on two
> different FS objects which are handles to the same FS, but that could be
> very different in another back end.

Thanks, I think I understand. I don't really disagree, either, but do
consider it an API change (considering the documentation that was in
place before) if we were to start forcing the FS's to be the same object.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Feb 27 22:14:18 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.