Blair Zajac wrote: > On 04/13/2011 03:17 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > > Branko Čibej wrote: > >> On 13.04.2011 11:37, Julian Foad wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 11:33 +0200, Branko Čibej wrote: > >>>> On 12.04.2011 18:50, Julian Foad wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 11:08 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > >>>>>> On 04/07/2011 08:49 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > >>>>>>> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:19:48 -0400: > >>>>>>>> "Remove temp APIs": I would put this at "nice to have". These APIs > >>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>> private, so what's the penalty if they wind up in the release? > >>>>>>> We'd have to support them privately for the rest of the 1.7.x line, > >>>>>>> due > >>>>>>> to private ABI compatibility? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.devel/125849 > >>>>>> Ah, okay. I didn't realize that we allowed mix-and-match of > >>>>>> patch-level-differing-only versions. > >>>>> Erm... AFAIK, we don't support a mis-matched set of libraries (e.g. > >>>>> libsvn_client 1.7.0 + libsvn_wc 1.7.1 + ...), so it's fine to have > >>>>> internal APIs that are called from a different Subversion library, and > >>>>> we won't need to preserve those through 1.7.x. > >>>> Then you'd better change the version checking code in the libraries. > >>> Please correct my understanding or ... wait a sec, this is already doc'd > >>> in 'Hacking', so I'll go take a look and correct myself. > > > > Are you saying we *do* support running a mixed set of Subversion > > libraries (e.g. libsvn_client 1.7.0 + libsvn_wc 1.7.1 + ...)? I was > > under the impression we had a policy of "you must upgrade (or downgrade) > > the libraries as a complete set, not individually". > > That's my understanding too, and IIRC, we've done this in the past with ----------------------------------------------------^^^^ What's "this"?
> merges to release branches. - Julian
