On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 17:26, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum.wri...@wandisco.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:18 AM, <i...@apache.org> wrote: >> Author: ivan >> Date: Thu Oct 20 13:18:02 2011 >> New Revision: 1186791 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1186791&view=rev >> Log: >> * STATUS: Cast a -0 vote for the r1185746 change. >> >> Modified: >> subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS >> >> Modified: subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS?rev=1186791&r1=1186790&r2=1186791&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS (original) >> +++ subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS Thu Oct 20 13:18:02 2011 >> @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ Candidate changes: >> Fix up some erroneous "Could not frob some targets because..." warnings. >> Votes: >> +1: stsp, rhuijben >> + -0: ivan (breaking ABI even for private function is not good thing for >> + patch release) > > I don't understand how this is breaking ABI. The only function > signature that changes in r1185746 is this: > [..] > > That's a binary-private function, completely within the command line > client. It doesn't cross any library boundaries. We make these types > of changes frequently in patch releases, which makes me a little > confused as to the reasoning behind your -0. > Oops, my fault. I was thinking this function cross library boundary. I'm going to remove my -0 vote. Thanks!
-- Ivan Zhakov
