On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:51:09PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
> So: What are we talking about here?
> An 'svn'-only user wants to see different error codes?
> (Perhaps he added patch over patch to make the numbers more visible in MAINTAINER mode?)
First and foremost, can you please quit making it personal. The subject being
discussed is whether r1501049 and r1501371 should be applied to 1.8.x (and, I
guess, whether they should be backed out from trunk). What patches I may or
may not have committed in the past is not relevant to the technical quality of
those two revisions.
Now, to your claim about seeing different error codes in 'svn', I repeatedly
explained to you that this is not about svn's output, in maintainer mode or
otherwise. This is about providing API users error numbers they can do
something with --- without hardcoding 120171 in their source code (not to
mention including serf.h from their source code, which cannot be assumed to
be in C), without hardcoding the assumption that Serf is the only
apr_status_t-using Subversion dependency, and without hardcoding the
assumption that Serf APR_OS_START_USERERR codes and Subversion
APR_OS_START_USERERR are disjoint.
Now, having said that, I'll put my cards on the table. You repeatedly ignored
my requests to name an API user whose code will be broken by this. You
repeatedly ignored my explanations that this has nothing to do with the
maintainer mode stack traces. You claimed that SVN_ERR_RA_SERF_WRAPPED_ERROR
gets unwrapped, failed to corroborate that claim, and I think I have proven it
So, I submit that your veto lacks a technical basis, and is therefore invalid,
and has no standing.
Feel free to provide a technical reason, of course.
Received on 2013-07-10 02:15:37 CEST