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

RE: 1.9 issues

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:32:12 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 28 januari 2014 14:20
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: Branko Čibej; dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 1.9 issues
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein_at_gmail.com]
> >> Sent: dinsdag 28 januari 2014 12:12
> >> To: Bert Huijben
> >> Cc: Branko Čibej; dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: 1.9 issues
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
> >> >...
> >> > +1 on moving it to another header file, but I'm not sure about the
> >> > requirement for yet another library... especially with a name that tells
> > the
> >> > user nothing... Every library is a 'tool'.
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >> And how solid are these? Should they hang in include/private for one
> >> release?
> >>
> >> I look at mtcc.h and the header is *broken*. The #define guard is
> >> wrong, there is no extern "C" in there. It seems immature, and not
> >> ready for immediate release.
> >
> > mtcc.h is a library internal header. The public api is currently in
> > svn_client.h. That is what all the discussion is about.
>
> I am well aware that client/mtcc.h is internal. And it is still
> broken, which gives me an indication of its maturity/review. Thus, my
> query/concern on keeping it private for now.
>
> > So thanks for directly jumping to a conclusion based on a subset of the
> > information; and without looking at the actual code.
>
> I *did* look at the code. So, frankly... <censored>.
>
> [ why did you feel the need to do that? ]
>
> > [If you don't see an import of mtcc.h in mtcc-test.c and in svmucc.c,
> > perhaps that should tell you that you don't look at the right header, or
> > even the right api...]
>
> I looked at the correct header. And now, you've gone and shifted all
> this around to a public header, even after I expressed concern about
> doing that. Why?

I moved it from a public header... to a different new public header...

And you ask why I made it public?

I didn't make it private... I didn't make it public... I just moved it.

I think there was consensus about not keeping it in svn_client.h... I don't think there was consensus to moving it to something stupid like private/svn_tools.h or private/svn_tools_private.h.

With the definitions in a separate header we are moving away from keeping it in svn_client.h.
And most likely it will make it far easier to move it further to a different location if we can reach consensus on that. I'm still waiting on better suggestions for the name of these apis.

(I don't like 'mtcc' at all, but it was the best I could come up with when I wrote the code.. mucc doesn't make much sense on this level either. And 'multicommand' / 'multioperation' will make every use far over 80 characters).

        Bert
Received on 2014-01-28 14:33:03 CET

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