On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 02:09:32PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: stsp_at_apache.org [mailto:stsp_at_apache.org]
> >> Sent: dinsdag 2 juli 2013 12:40
> >> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> >> Subject: svn commit: r1498873 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion:
> >> libsvn_wc/entries.c libsvn_wc/tree_conflicts.c libsvn_wc/tree_conflicts.h
> >> libsvn_wc/upgrade.c tests/libsvn_wc/conflict-data-test.c
> >>
> >> Author: stsp
> >> Date: Tue Jul 2 10:40:22 2013
> >> New Revision: 1498873
> >>
> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1498873
> >> Log:
> >> Make svn_wc__serialize_conflict() and svn_wc__deserialize_conflict() use
> >> the
> >> new conflict description structure (svn_wc_conflict_description3_t).
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is really what we want here. If we move this forward with the new infrastructure we have to rev it every kind when we upgrade, while it is really only used for providing svn_wc_entry_t to 1.6 style API uers, and for the upgrade from 1.6.
>
> Maybe move v3 of this structure to private? Move to an API rather than
> bare struct?
I've been considering making it private. The reason I haven't yet done
so is that I'm not sure where we'll go next with affected APIs.
The most important public API affected by this is the conflict
resolution callback. It needs this struct or needs to be changed when
making the struct private, e.g. to expect some set of function parameters.
Perhaps now is a good time to start discussing what we should do?
Received on 2013-07-02 20:23:52 CEST