Hi Joe,
I agree with your plan. :)
In <ae6cb1100708111634ma3c0bc2s2da933146662a8fa@mail.gmail.com>
"Re: svn commit: r26006 - in trunk/subversion/bindings/swig: include ruby/libsvn_swig_ruby ruby/svn" on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:34:13 -0700,
"Joe Swatosh" <joe.swatosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I am planning to do:
> >
> > 1) Finish getting the tests to pass. The client test_merge and
> > test_merge_peg are still broken (I think there have been at least
> > three revisions that have contributed to their brokenness). I have
> > them passing locally, but I'm going to spend some time trolling the
> > history to see if I can figure out exactly what revisions did the
> > breaking.
> >
> > 2) Change all the merge_info to mergeinfo and get rid of the aliases.
> >
>
> 2.5 New test for svn_swig_rb_conflict_resolver_func along with tidying it up.
>
> > 3) Revert update_editor and switch_editor changes and add
> > update_editor2 and switch_editor2 with the hash options as we discuss
> > above.
> >
> > 4) More diffs with 1.4.x to see if I can spot any other api regressions.
> >
> > 5) Start adding more options hashes (should we come up with a list of
> > methods with many optional arguments to prioritize?).
It isn't needed. I think all of functions that has
svn_XXX{2,3,...}() functions are target. Their function
signature will be changed. We will hide the changes by hash
options. (Yes, 5) needs much works...)
Thanks,
--
kou
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Aug 12 02:55:37 2007