C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> As part of issue #3200, I've done my best to get the various bindings
> back to the state they were in before I reworked the C API. As far as I
> know, that means that with respect to support for custom revision
> properties provided at commit-time:
> Python supports this via the client APIs in all places that the C API
> Ruby supports this via the client APIs in almost all the places that
> the C API does. I didn't know what to do with mkdir(), for the reasons
> noted in the log message of r31249.
> JavaHL compiles, but doesn't support this feature at all. I don't
> *think* that's my fault (and if it is, I'm sorry). But if this isn't
> the state we want to release those bindings in for 1.5.0, I need someone
> else to undertake that change. (See r31250 for a list of the
> SVNClient.cpp functions that would need to grow a 'revPropTable'
> parameter which is Java-ized and passed into the C API.)
I talked to Mike for a bit on IRC this evening about the JavaHL
bindings, and volunteered to look at them. We already rev'd most of the
APIs for 1.5, so adding this hopefully won't be *too* much work. Most
of it is copy-pasting, anyway. I mean really, "how hard could it be?"
> Perl. I don't know. The Perl bindings almost appear to be
> They build, and the tests pass, but as far as I know there's no support
> for this feature. Here again, I'm out of my element with this set
> of bindings.
> So, if you're in the To: line of this mail, it means you appear per the
> last few revisions of one of these bindings collections to be the
> closest approximation of a maintainer thereof, and I need your help
> finishing what I started, unbreaking what I've broken, or adding a new
> feature before the 1.5.0 release because we overlooked it earlier.
> Please keep issue #3200 informed of your progress, and of course add
> relevant revisions to the r31243 block in /branches/1.5.x/STATUS.
Putting on the RM hat for a minute:
I don't think this consistutes a big enough change to restart the 1.5
soak. However, I'm not opposed to prolonging it if we feel that we need
more testing of the bindings as they expose this feature. Feedback
would be appreciated.
Received on 2008-05-17 06:20:23 CEST