On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 17:08, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> gstein_at_apache.org wrote on Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 20:51:17 -0000:
>> Author: gstein
>> Date: Wed Jul 13 20:51:17 2011
>> New Revision: 1146452
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1146452&view=rev
>> Modified: subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS?rev=1146452&r1=1146451&r2=1146452&view=diff
>> --- subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS (original)
>> +++ subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS Wed Jul 13 20:51:17 2011
>> @@ -15,14 +15,6 @@ Status of 1.7.0:
>> Candidate changes:
>> - * r1146013
>> - Improve notifications of paths skipped because they were conflicted
>> - Justification:
>> - Improves general usability of the svn client and the libsvn_client api
>> - and would have to wait for 1.8.0 if it doesn't get in 1.7.0.
>> - Votes:
>> - +1: rhuijben, cmpilato
>> * r1146131, r1146134
>> Add svn_fs_verify() API.
>> @@ -32,6 +24,10 @@ Candidate changes:
>> +1: danielsh, rhuijben
>> -1: stsp (no-op API change)
>> -1: cmpilato (no-op API change -- will reconsider if real utility is added)
>> + -1: gstein (callers have no idea if the function will do anything
>> + since they don't know if they're working with 1.7.0 or
>> + 1.7.10, so why bother to call it at all? cross your
>> + fingers and hope?)
>> * r1146214, r1146381
>> Handle NULL inputs when stringifying svn_checksum_t.
>> @@ -39,7 +35,8 @@ Candidate changes:
>> Avoids segfaults.
>> +1: danielsh
>> - -0: cmpilato, rhuijben (problem is with callers, not implementation)
>> + -0: cmpilato, rhuijben, gstein (problem is with callers,
>> + not implementation)
> Just a reminder: this revision IS present on trunk, so someone please
> suggest how to change trunk to avoid releasing this triply-(-0)ed change
> in 1.8.0.
Fix the callers to avoid passing NULL.
Or leave the API change in there. Note that we are voting -0 rather
than applying a veto to your API change [on trunk]. I say that "we
disagree, but not strongly enough to raise a stink". And "we'd prefer
if you find a different solution" rather than "require to find".
Received on 2011-07-13 23:20:05 CEST