Well, sure. It will still be correct because our Ev2-aware libraries will not use Ev1 APIs, and (thus) never have shims inserted. But I think that "third-party" helps to clarify who we're talking about: developers/products that are not part of the core svn releases. In any case, we're just talking about my emails. Not product API documentation. I like the extra qualification.
Cheers, -g On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 18:15, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: > I get your distinction between "clients that use the native Ev2 API", > "clients that use the Ev1 API in Ev2-aware libraries", and "clients that > use the Ev1 API in Ev2-oblivious libraries". > > But I think striking the word(s) "third-party" from your third paragraph > will not affect its correctness. > > Greg Stein wrote on Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 17:55:29 -0500: >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 17:39, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: >> >... >> > 1. Third-parties who use Ev1 interface would lose the integrity check. >> > >> > 2. Subversion 1.7 uses, and will use, Ev1 interfaces. >> > >> > Therefore: >> > >> > 3. Subversion 1.7 would lose the integrity check. >> > >> > Correct? >> >> Nope. 'svn' is not considered a third-party, to begin with. Further, >> internally, it only uses the Ev1 interfaces. No shims get inserted. >> When we deploy Ev2 within the svn libraries and tools (in the 1.8 or >> 1.9 release), we aren't going to use the shims, so we aren't going to >> lose the integrity check. >> >> Third party clients, linked to Ev2-using libraries, and which continue >> to use the old Ev1 APIs will have a shim inserted, and (thus) lose the >> base_checksum integrity check. >> >> IOW, when we release an Ev2-based Subversion, and third-party clients >> that were built against the 1.0 through 1.7 APIs... those clients will >> have shims inserted, and lose the check. It *is* possible that our >> backwards-compat code could fetch the checksum and pass it along to >> those third-party Ev1 users. But in the current dual-shim setup that >> Hyrum is developing/testing with, there is no such mechanism for >> fetching (hard to do, compared to just disabling the check in the >> first place). >> >> Does that make sense? >> >> Cheers, >> -g
