On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:19 +0100, Philip Martin wrote: > Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> writes: > > > svn_wc_private.h has seen massive changes in 1.7. A 1.6 libsvn_client > > will not function against 1.7 libraries at all. > > It depends what you mean by "at all". > > svn up up -r953427 ../src > ./config.nice --disable-full-version-match > make -j3 > for i in subversion/libsvn_*/.libs/libsvn_*so.0.0.0;do cp $i > ../obj-1.6/$i;done > cd ../obj-1.6 > > Now I have a 1.6 client with 1.7 libraries. It works well enough to > checkout and commit. > > rm subversion/libsvn_client/libsvn_client-1.la > make libsvn_client > > Now I have a 1.6 svn client and 1.6 libsvn_client with all other 1.7 > libraries. It works well enough to do a checkout but wc locks get > left requiring cleanup to be used. > > Commit fails with an abspath assertion. That could mean that we are > missing an abspath conversion and so allowing a 1.6 non-abspath into > our 1.7 libraries. We need to test for that sort of thing before > realeasing 1.7. How will we do that if we can't even run our own > client? > > > We said a while back that the svn executables and libraries should be > > upgraded/downgraded/patched as a group. These internal dependencies > > will (thus) remain in sync across the link units. > > I'd certainly agree that we only support upgrading all the libraries > together. I like to allow the libraries to be upgraded without the > client since that is what we expect other people to do, although I > don't think we should support it as such. > > > The fact is: we are sloppy with versioning guidelines on private APIs. > > Third-party code using our public APIs receive all of our strict > > guideline benefits. > > > > Cheers, > > -g > > > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 05:26, Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> > > wrote: > >> A question on removing a private API. > >> > >> In v1.6.5 (r878898) we added the API "svn_opt__eat_peg_revisions()" and > >> called it from the command-line client. This means 1.6.(>=5) 'svn' is > >> not compatible with 1.6.(<5) libraries. > >> > >> What we should have done is to make it a private function within the > >> client code, not in the libraries. But that's history and we can live > >> with it. > >> > >> In r953428 on trunk I have moved the function out of the libraries into > >> the client code.[*] (We are allowed to introduce new library functions > >> on trunk, of course, but we don't want to keep this particular function > >> in the API long term.) > >> > >> A consequence is that we will not be able to run svn 1.6.(>=5) > >> executables against 1.7.x libraries. It would be useful to do so for > >> testing, of course. > >> > >> The questions are: > >> > >> How well can we test 1.6.x (or older) 'svn' against newer libraries > >> anyway? Are there other private-API changes that make it impossible > >> without special compatibility code insertions? Has anyone tried? > > I fixed two problems some time ago: svn_opt__eat_peg_revisions that > allows the 1.6 client to use the 1.7 libraries and one other that > allows 1.6 libsvn_client to use the 1.7 libraries.
Ah, you added that svn_opt__eat_peg_revisions() forwarding function specifically to support this? Now I understand where you're coming from. OK, perhaps we'll re-add this. And/or make it a non-library function in 1.6.(>=12) so that at least we'll be able to test *some* versions of 1.6.x. Any preference? (My preference is something like the latter, because I really odn't want us to keep that particular function: I want to get rid of even the non-library version of it soon.) - Julian > >> > >> Do we want to put this private API back into the 1.7 libraries for > >> compatibility testing purposes > > Yes. > > >> or for any other reason? >
