subversion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko Čibej <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1849080 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: bindings/javahl/native/Path.cpp include/svn_dirent_uri.h libsvn_subr/dirent_uri.c svndumpfilter/svndumpfilter.c tests/libsvn_subr/dirent_uri-test.c
Date Mon, 17 Dec 2018 12:32:52 GMT
On 17.12.2018 13:28, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote on Mon, 17 Dec 2018 13:19 +0100:
>> On 17.12.2018 13:11, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> wrote on Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:26 +0000:
>>>> * subversion/include/svn_dirent_uri.h
>>>>   (svn_relpath__internal_style): Change prototype so that the function can
>>>>    return an error instead of aborting if anything goes wrong.
>>> Shall we move the declaration to subversion/include/private/ while we're
>>> at it?  That will ensure that API consumers that called this function
>>> --- yes, they shouldn't have, but they may have anyway --- don't
>>> accidentally call the re-signatured function (after upgrading
>>> without recompiling) and get hard-to-trace garbage.
>> I've been meaning to raise the same question. The only non-library user
>> is svndumpfilter, but we "cheat" in the command-line client, too.
>> If no-one objects, I'll move this declaration to somewhere in
>> subversion/include/private. I'm not sure where though, there's no really
>> appropriate private header there (svn_subr_private.h and
>> svn_string_private.h are the obvious candidates).
> I'd say the obvious candidate is a new svn_dirent_uri_private.h.
> But I thinko'd earlier.  Moving the declaration won't affect the ABI
> compatibility issue; for that we'd have to rename the function as well.
> I think it's plausible that a third party library user may be calling this
> function since it doesn't specifically have a doxygen note warning that
> it's private --- notwithstanding it being named with double underscores.

True ...  I'll rename the function at the same time.

-- Brane

View raw message