Blair Zajac wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 03:17 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Are you saying we *do* support running a mixed set of Subversion
> > libraries (e.g. libsvn_client 1.7.0 + libsvn_wc 1.7.1 + ...)? I was
> > under the impression we had a policy of "you must upgrade (or downgrade)
> > the libraries as a complete set, not individually".
>
> That's my understanding too, and IIRC, we've done this in the past with
----------------------------------------------------^^^^
What's "this"?
> merges to release branches.
- Julian
Received on 2011-04-14 11:20:37 CEST