On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 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
> ...
>> > 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.
>
I believe that we do not promise compatibility for private API.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2013-04-11 11:25:29 CEST