On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Lieven Govaerts <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Justin, > > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:30 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Author: jerenkrantz >> Date: Sat Aug 21 02:30:31 2010 >> New Revision: 987689 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=987689&view=rev >> Log: >> Propose r879757 & r880320 for backport to 1.6.x. >> >> Modified: >> subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS >> >> Modified: subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS?rev=987689&r1=987688&r2=987689&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS (original) >> +++ subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS Sat Aug 21 02:30:31 2010 >> @@ -233,6 +233,17 @@ Candidate changes: >> Votes: >> +1: danielsh >> >> + * r879757, r880320 >> + Let ra_serf work with current serf releases. >> + Justification: >> + Having a dud client is bad. This seems to be the minimal required >> changes. >> + Backport branch: >> + ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x-r879757 >> + Notes: >> + r879757 is the main fix. r880320 is a follow up fix. >> + Votes: >> + +1: jerenkrantz > > I didn't want to propose r879757 for backport because it changes the > svn_ra_serf__conn_setup function declaration, which is used as a > callback function for serf, in an incompatible way with serf 0.3. As > long as one builds and runs svn with the same serf version there is no > problem. The idea was to just raise the minimum serf version with svn > 1.7 release, so this problem couldn't happen. > > Is this something we make promises about?
It has the ifdef so older serf's should work fine. Or, am I missing something? Is the issue compiling against 0.4.x+ and running with 0.3.x+? If so, I'm not sure that's worth worrying about. (Serf doesn't have a promise of binary API compatibility...) The core issue that I'm trying to address in this backport is that we don't have enough auto-fu checks currently in place to block combinations of 1.6.x with current releases of serf. We have no version checks at configure-time - only at compile-time; and the compile-time checks in 1.6.x don't complain if it sees a serf version it doesn't know about. So, right now, 1.6.x (without r879757) builds "successfully", but due to the API mismatches, we get a dud client with serf 0.4.0+ and 1.6.x. -- justin
