On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:28:30 +0300: >> Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 23:33:01 +0400: >> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: >> > > Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 21:48:39 +0400: >> > >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:44 PM, C. Michael Pilato >> > >> <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: >> > >> > On 04/10/2013 12:33 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >> > >> >> Right now, trunk has APIs backing an 'svnadmin info' (or 'svnlook >> > >> >> info') >> > >> >> command but not a UI for them. (Some of them have unit tests.) I >> > >> >> think we >> > >> >> don't want to release with just the half-backed APIs, so we'll have >> > >> >> to either >> > >> >> revert them or add a UI for them. As far as I'm concerned reverting >> > >> >> is fine, >> > >> >> and I can continue the work on trunk and propose for backport >> > >> >> before, say, >> > >> >> beta1. >> > >> > >> > >> > Either revert or privatize them -- whatever's easiest. Now's really >> > >> > not the >> > >> > best time to be trying to introduce new UI, methinks. >> > >> > >> > >> +1 >> > > >> > > Made them conditional on -DSVN_FS_INFO. >> > I think it's better to make API private instead of ifdef: >> > 1. svn_repos.h/svn_fs.h readers might be confused with this ifdef > ... >> > 2. Private API still allow to use this functionality by svn 1.8 API >> > users with disclaimer that this may change in svn 1.9. >> >> That's unprecedented, we've never released an API "without compatibility >> promises". We could do that but that's a separate discussion IMO. > I believe that we do not promise compatibility for private API.
-- Ivan Zhakov
