On Apr 14, 2011, at 2:19 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> 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"?
Add, modify or remove private functions.
Blair
Received on 2011-04-14 18:06:44 CEST