On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
> On 19 August 2014 15:34, Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com>
> > Hi there,
> > At the SHF hackathon, we talked what tools should be installed
> > by default and which should be part of tools.
> > We decided to make
> > * svn-bench (reported as useful in the field) and
> I agree that 'svn-bench' could be useful for users, but what is the
> reason for non-standard naming? Why this tool is not named 'svnbench'
This has already been brought up here:
Personally, I'd be fine with renaming it. Others think
we shouldn't do it because of "released". Realistically,
we will break hardly anybody's setup by renaming it.
> * svnfsfs (disaster recovery tools should be available by default)
> I doubt that 'svnfsfs' can be moved to "main" Subversion in the
> current state because it uses internal library headers and functions
> from libsvn_fs_fs:
> #include "../libsvn_fs_fs/index.h"
> #include "../libsvn_fs_fs/pack.h"
> #include "../libsvn_fs_fs/rev_file.h"
> #include "../libsvn_fs_fs/util.h"
> Have you considered this?
Only to the degree that I mentioned that the tool links
against libsvn_fs_fs directly instead of using the loader.
People seemed fine with that.
> What is about ABI/API issues?
You have a point there. Those functions probably need
to be exported like any other private API that we use
(Windows DLL exports come to mind).
> Note that we
> never include such headers in current Subversion code except
> "fs-loader.h" and tests.
Would moving the declarations (2 structs, 10 functions)
to a new "include/private/svn_fs_fs_private.h" be sufficient
in your opinion?
Received on 2014-08-26 15:03:20 CEST