On 23.06.2011 22:59, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein_at_gmail.com]
>> Sent: donderdag 23 juni 2011 22:30
>> To: Bert Huijben
>> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1132968 - in
>> /subversion/trunk/subversion/include: svn_types.h svn_version.h
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 15:47, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein_at_gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: donderdag 23 juni 2011 21:01
>>>> To: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1132968 - in
>>>> /subversion/trunk/subversion/include: svn_types.h svn_version.h
>>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 08:14, <rhuijben_at_apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Author: rhuijben
>>>>> Date: Tue Jun 7 12:14:14 2011
>>>>> New Revision: 1132968
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1132968&view=rev
>>>>> Following up on r1132965, just move the type. This matches how we
>>>> handled the
>>>>> problem for svn_error_t.
>>>>> * subversion/include/svn_types.h
>>>>> (svn_version_t): Add full definition here.
>>>>> * subversion/include/svn_version.h
>>>>> (svn_version_t): And remove it here.
>>>> I've been thinking more on this change and absolutely hate it.
>>>> We have a header DEDICATED to this structure and its concepts. The
>>>> structure should be in that header file. It makes no sense to have a
>>>> dedicated header, yet to move its key structure somewhere else.
>>>> Please revert this change.
>>> We also have a header file dedicated to svn_error_t and yet it is
> defined in
>> Yes. We wanted to avoid recursive includes, per the comment attached
>> to svn_error_t. That is because svn_error_t is used within
>> svn_version_t is NOT used within svn_types.h, so there is no need to
>> disentangle recursive #includes.
>>> The fact that you personally hate it doesn't add any weight to your
>>> I don't see any other strong opinions on this and as you try to teach
>>> everyone on this list Apache doesn't have per project dictators who say
>>> can, can't and must be done. With a veto we ask for a different solution
>>> order not to stall the project.
>> I'm not a dictator, and I didn't attempt to veto this. I'm asking you
>> to revert a change that myself and a few others disagree with.
>> I dunno what a "different solution" would be because the move of the
>> structure didn't solve any problems.
>>> What solution do you suggest for having a header included everywhere
>>> changes on every tag?
>> Huh? My svn_version.h hasn't changed since June 9th, when I pulled
>> down this change. It never changes for us developers.
>>> Can we move the defines that change to a different header that isn't
>>> included everywhere?
>>> What kind of forward (typedef) would work to allow keeping the reduced
>>> of includes?
>> I really don't know what defines you're talking about that change.
>>> I just did what you did in early 1.7 development: reduce the number of
>>> recursive header includes and this one really helps in the build time:
>>> Especially for third party projects building on top of Subversion.
> (Which we
>>> currently ask to follow trunk)
>> I don't understand the third party angle here. What does that have to
>> do with the placement of the svn_version_t structure?
> The defines I'm talking about are
> (I'm not interested in these as these don't change that often, but I add
> them here for completeness)
> #define SVN_VER_MAJOR 1
> #define SVN_VER_MINOR 7
> #define SVN_VER_PATCH 0
> But most importantly
> #define SVN_VER_TAG " (under development)"
> #define SVN_VER_NUMTAG "-dev"
> #define SVN_VER_REVISION 0
> These are redefined by third party distributions that somehow influence how
> Subversion is built to make it visible to their users that they are not 100%
> the official build.
Please just admit that you're doing this to scratch your personal
"half-an-hour-a-day" itch because you have a build setup that
continually fiddles with svn_version.h, and leave the third-party
hand-waving out of it.
For SharpSVN, since it's C#, you can put the actual version info into
your assembly metadata and not touch svn_version.h at all, right?
Received on 2011-06-24 02:13:29 CEST