Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <56430A5F.70403@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:29:03 +0100
From: Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan2@apache.org>
Organization: Apache Software Foundation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Merge 'svnmover' demo tool to trunk
References: 
 <CAEcU=1YE5Ci02j_4aAeB_roS1X0H2QWPP3juu0exjVJ-FGCLyg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEcU=1YE5Ci02j_4aAeB_roS1X0H2QWPP3juu0exjVJ-FGCLyg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10.11.2015 16:28, Julian Foad wrote:
> The work on the 'move-tracking-2' branch currently consists of some
> library functions (mostly named 'svn_branch_*') which are used only by
> the demo tool named 'svnmover'. These do not interfere with normal
> Subversion operation at all. I propose to merge this to trunk to lower
> the barrier to participation in this work.

If we want to merge the branch, now is a good time to do so
because we are still in the early stages of 1.10 development.

As Bert already mentioned, we should not introduce new public
API for functionality that we don't plan to maintain post-1.10.
The header files are already correctly placed under "private"
but getting the renames done before merging would reduce the
code churn on trunk.

> I first need to review a few places where I touched existing code to
> insert 'shims'; only a small part of this would remain, I think, as
> bidirectional shims are not currently available.

Another good reason for merging: See what parts of the existing
code it needs to interact with.  Yes, diff would tell us the
same but only if one is very careful to pick a good path@rev
pair.  On trunk, people may feel more inclined to review and
adjust those points of interaction.

> Any objections?

Once the cleanup is done, +1 on merge.

-- Stefan^2.