[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Let's branch on Friday.

From: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 02:28:30 +0300

Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 23:33:01 +0400:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 21:48:39 +0400:
> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:44 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> >> > On 04/10/2013 12:33 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >> >> Right now, trunk has APIs backing an 'svnadmin info' (or 'svnlook info')
> >> >> command but not a UI for them. (Some of them have unit tests.) I think we
> >> >> don't want to release with just the half-backed APIs, so we'll have to either
> >> >> revert them or add a UI for them. As far as I'm concerned reverting is fine,
> >> >> and I can continue the work on trunk and propose for backport before, say,
> >> >> beta1.
> >> >
> >> > Either revert or privatize them -- whatever's easiest. Now's really not the
> >> > best time to be trying to introduce new UI, methinks.
> >> >
> >> +1
> >
> > Made them conditional on -DSVN_FS_INFO.
> I think it's better to make API private instead of ifdef:
> 1. svn_repos.h/svn_fs.h readers might be confused with this ifdef

I'm happy to just delete the #ifdef's sections on the branch altogether.
I tend to do that post-branch though.

> 2. Private API still allow to use this functionality by svn 1.8 API
> users with disclaimer that this may change in svn 1.9.

That's unprecedented, we've never released an API "without compatibility
promises". We could do that but that's a separate discussion IMO.
Received on 2013-04-11 01:29:08 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.