On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > Hyrum K Wright wrote on Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 21:47:12 -0600: >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> >> wrote: >> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 13:20:29 +0100: >> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Could you have a look? (attached) >> >> >> >> Nice. It looks good to me (haven't tested it, just looked at the code; >> >> I assume it passes with trunk?) >> >> >> > >> > Thanks, yes, r1068749. >> > >> > While I'm here, in light of the truncation bug in diff3 earlier today, >> > how about adding a warning to svn_diff_diff4_2() family of API's to the >> > effect of "@warning This code is experimental"? >> >> How much more experimental is it than other recent code we've added to >> trunk? > > s/experimental/under-exercised/ > (no known callers, only one unit test) > >> (And I hope that such an appellation would be only temporary; >> experimental code close to a release is a Bad Thing. Johan is working >> hard to fix whatever Badness there may be.) >> > > The experimental code is svn_diff_diff4_2(); AFAIK svn_diff_diff4() is > as stable as ever.
I have no objections on adding such an annotation. However, from where I'm sitting, svn_diff_diff4() is/was just as under-exercised as svn_diff_diff4_2(), i.e. no known callers, only one unit test (thanks for adding that test, BTW). Of course it's into the codebase a lot longer than *_2, but it has never had any core code calling it, and no unit tests (so could have been broken by any number of commits after its inception till now). -- Johan
