Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:20 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> So, what to do? Do we explicitly allow absolute paths through all of our RA
>> interfaces? (Please don't make inconsistent policy here and give per-method
>> exceptions.) Do we stick with the published APIs and send our best wishes
>> and a vase of flowers to folks who were previously misusing the APIs and
>> have now been caught doing so?
> I imagine you are trying to be helpful and sympathetic here to the
> bzr-svn team, but don't we essentially have to stick with the
> published API? It seems like we have always chosen that as our
> answer, and I do not see why this would be different.
> We do not want to get into a "Microsoft" situation here where we try
> to support our bugs forever because we discover there are consumers
> that depended on them in their usage of the API. I realize that is an
> exaggeration since we would really just be expanding what the API can
> do, but it is an unknown amount of new code to actually modify the
> API's to support this new concept.
For the purposes of the 1.5.0 release, I agree. I tightened that sloppy
code up for a reason, and found a bunch of bugs as a result. I'd like *not*
to loosen it up again just to cater to folks who happen to like the way one
of our bugs pans out.
Now, that our current RA model causes many operations that needn't fail to
do so is another problem altogether. But for API consumers that have been
well-behaved, that has always been true, so we can (if we so desire) address
those matters in a future release.
(And yes, I was trying to be sympathic. In a recent self-exam of my
Spiritual Gifts, I scored a disappointing 3 out of 25 possible points in the
area of Mercy.)
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-06-03 19:46:53 CEST