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

Re: status information

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:07:27 -0400

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:58 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:

> Stefan:  As I've said before, TortoiseSVN will have what it needs to
> function and function well.  The code is in a crazy state of flux right now,
> though, and we don't want to wind up whipping out un-thought-out APIs to
> satisfy your needs *today* that we'll have to live with forever.  Please
> allow us more time to get past the plumbing stages of the WC-NG transitional
> work before asking us to address your needs.  We really do want to give you
> the information you need; we further want to give it to you in a way that
> doesn't bind our hands in the future.

I would like to also think that we will not even consider shipping
1.7.0 unless it is faster overall than 1.6, and that would likely
include being faster for the API usage patterns of TortoiseSVN.

A couple other points/questions.

Stefan seems to be operating under the impression that the public
libsvn_wc API is going away in 1.7. I did not think that was true? I
know I have personally argued we should not be as worried about the
backwards compat. if we can make a better API, but I have not heard us
say we are not going to provide API.

Second, Stefan's idea of an API with flags about what you want to
retrieve makes sense to me IF we are talking about a client API. This
would seem like a good way to keep callers of the API writing to the
client API and allow us to deal with using the callbacks mentioned
from within the implementation of the client API based on the flags
passed. I do not get the push-back to this idea.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2010-06-18 20:08:05 CEST

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