On Apr 14, 2011, at 2:19 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > 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"?
Add, modify or remove private functions. Blair
