Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 08:42:20 +0100: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > > 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). >
In other words, svn_diff_diff4() is as experimental as svn_diff_diff4_2(). Agreed. IMO the issue boils down to representation: if we haven't tested a given piece of code (it has no callers and a surfacial unit test), then we shouldn't represent to API consumers otherwise. Daniel (and yes, I respect all the work you've been doing; my opinion of diff4_2() is orthogonal to that) > -- > Johan
