On 13.04.2011 11:37, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 11:33 +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 12.04.2011 18:50, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 11:08 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>>> On 04/07/2011 08:49 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>>>> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:19:48 -0400:
>>>>>> "Remove temp APIs": I would put this at "nice to have". These APIs are
>>>>>> private, so what's the penalty if they wind up in the release?
>>>>> We'd have to support them privately for the rest of the 1.7.x line, due
>>>>> to private ABI compatibility?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.devel/125849
>>>> Ah, okay. I didn't realize that we allowed mix-and-match of
>>>> patch-level-differing-only versions.
>>> Erm... AFAIK, we don't support a mis-matched set of libraries (e.g.
>>> libsvn_client 1.7.0 + libsvn_wc 1.7.1 + ...), so it's fine to have
>>> internal APIs that are called from a different Subversion library, and
>>> we won't need to preserve those through 1.7.x.
>> Then you'd better change the version checking code in the libraries.
> Please correct my understanding or ... wait a sec, this is already doc'd
> in 'Hacking', so I'll go take a look and correct myself.
Specifically, no library should be using svn_ver_check_list, but only
svn_ver_equal, if what you say about library compatibility is true.
-- Brane
Received on 2011-04-13 11:48:36 CEST