On 17/12/2017 23:12, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: > Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> writes: > >> This language implies that we made a backwards incompatible change in 1.6, >> which is not precisely the case; 1.6 simply started enforcing an API >> requirement that 1.5 did not. >> >> Could we perhaps rephrase this accordingly? I.e., point out that we weren't >> inventing a backwards-incompatible requirement, but starting to enforce one >> that had always been there? > I would think that from the standpoint of a user reading the release notes, > both versions look more or less the same (maybe, with the second one being > slightly harder to parse due to its verbosity): > > Such property line endings were accepted by older servers and can be found > in repository dumps, but are considered invalid starting with Subversion > 1.6. > > Such invalid line endings were accepted by older servers and can be found > in repository dumps of older repositories, but are rejected by Subversion > 1.6 > and later. > > But, presumably, both variants are fine, as both of them explain the reason > behind the "Cannot accept non-LF line endings" error — so please feel free > to commit this tweak if you think it would be more appropriate. > > > Thanks, > Evgeny Kotkov
When reading the initial text, I was wondering exactly the point danielsh brought up. While to someone who is aware of the history, the how and why of the invalid line endings in a dump file is fully clear and he'd read both of the suggested descriptions absolutely the same (as you did, Evgeny); someone who doesn't know/recall the details might in fact wonder why the incompatibility behavior was introduced in 1.6 (as I did). That's less likely to happen with danielsh's phrasing, since it points out that these line endings were (always) considered invalid. So to not just reply here without taking action, I went ahead and committed danielsh's suggested change in r1818517. Regards, Stefan
