On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > Hyrum K Wright wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 07:21:43 +0000: >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> >> wrote: >> > hwri...@apache.org wrote on Mon, May 16, 2011 at 15:36:24 -0000: >> >> Author: hwright >> >> Date: Mon May 16 15:36:24 2011 >> >> New Revision: 1103771 >> >> >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1103771&view=rev >> >> Log: >> >> Convert a bit of the recursive propget to use absolute paths, by doing >> >> path >> >> relativifcation in the command line program, where it belongs. >> >> >> >> Note: I *think* this is backwards compatible, since we promise paths, but >> >> don't specify absolute or relative in the docs. If somebody has an >> >> alternative >> >> interpretation, we can do the API-rev dance. >> >> >> >> * subversion/svn/propget-cmd.c >> >> (print_properties): Make a relative path from an absolute one, if >> >> possible. >> >> >> >> * subversion/svn/propedit-cmd.c >> >> (svn_cl__propedit): Fetch the property from the hash via absolute path. >> > >> > How can it be a backwards compatible API change if you had to change the >> > API consumer (the cmdline client)? >> >> If the consumer depends upon an (undocumented) implementation detail, >> you can bet it'll need to change when those details change. (Example: >> anybody relying upon the entries-file implementation detail is going >> to have a hard time with 1.7.) >> >> I maintain that if we didn't document the behavior, existing clients >> are depending on an implementation detail (which they shouldn't be >> doing). This doesn't mean we can't rev the API to make things easier >> for them, but it does mean we are well within our rights to change the >> implementation and have things break for the consumer. >> > > Two things: > > * Could we have written the cmdline client in 1.6 in a way that's > oblivious of the absoluteness/relativeness of the hash keys? > > * Concretely: the svn_client_propget3() docstring states that > the keys will be prefixed by @a TARGET. That seems to me to > imply svn_dirent_join(TARGET, ...) --- without changing whether > TARGET is absolute or relative.
Yes. I don't have a strong opinion in this discussion, but completely objectively, one could also say that the documentation was flawed (or inaccurate), i.e. a bug in the docstring. It talked about a PATH, but every consumer deduced it had to be a relative path ... -- Johan
