Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 08:42:20 +0100:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > The experimental code is svn_diff_diff4_2(); AFAIK svn_diff_diff4() is
> > as stable as ever.
>
> I have no objections on adding such an annotation. However, from where
> I'm sitting, svn_diff_diff4() is/was just as under-exercised as
> svn_diff_diff4_2(), i.e. no known callers, only one unit test (thanks
> for adding that test, BTW). Of course it's into the codebase a lot
> longer than *_2, but it has never had any core code calling it, and no
> unit tests (so could have been broken by any number of commits after
> its inception till now).
>
In other words, svn_diff_diff4() is as experimental as svn_diff_diff4_2().
Agreed.
IMO the issue boils down to representation: if we haven't tested a given
piece of code (it has no callers and a surfacial unit test), then we
shouldn't represent to API consumers otherwise.
Daniel
(and yes, I respect all the work you've been doing; my opinion of
diff4_2() is orthogonal to that)
> --
> Johan
Received on 2011-02-09 10:15:44 CET