Re: request to make svn_wc__prop_list_recursive a public API

On 18.02.2011 14:37, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 02/18/2011 06:42 AM, Stefan Küng wrote:
>> On 17.02.2011 14:19, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>>
>>> <aside>
>>> Last summer in Berlin we had a quite heated discussion about just
>>> deprecating all of libsvn_wc APIs. I was against such a move (at
>>> least until 2.0) in that it would leave the existing APIs public, but
>>> any new ones private, and the whole interface in limbo. I still feel
>>> that way, and this discussion vindicates that feeling (at least to me
>>> :) ).
>>> </aside>
>>
>> Removing all the libsvn_wc APIs is a bad idea. For example, the new status
>> function returns a *lot* less information than the deprecated ones.
>
> Stop right here. There seems to be an assumption clouding this discussion,
> and that assumption is that "the new status function" is the only new status
> function that can be added. It's our API -- your API -- and we can do with
> it what we wish. If you need the functionality of some current libsvn_wc
> function, chances are that you're not the only one who does. Fortunately,
> we are both empowered and motivated to provide that functionality to you
> wrapped with a thin svn_client wrapper function. Is there some technical
> reason that would prevent this?
>

I wanted to avoid this, but if you remember we've had this discussion
before. I requested that the new status API would return information
that the deprecated one did too. And the very first answer I got was
that even "the scan if the file has been modified on disk will be removed".
I first thought this was a joke, because status means (for me at least)
the information whether a file has been modified/added/... locally - but
apparently it wasn't. So the discussion just went downhill from there:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.devel/120475/focus=120550
warning: that discussion is something I'm not proud of, and I think some
of you aren't either.

So all I'm saying is that you can decide whatever you want. I will keep
requesting things I need, but I'm trying to avoid discussions like the
one linked above. And as I said: you have to decide whether you want to
mark all functions in libsvn_wc as private or provide enough information
in *one* svn_client_ call. Otherwise the performance will get so bad it
will be unusable.

Stefan

-- 
        ___
   oo  // \\      "De Chelonian Mobile"
  (_,\/ \_/ \     TortoiseSVN
    \ \_/_\_/>    The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
    /_/   \_\     http://tortoisesvn.net