On 03/20/2013 09:45 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote: > >> On 20.03.2013 04:47, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>> See attached patch. Any objections to doing that (and similar >>> changes to the rest of the code)? >> >> Must we do this just before branching? I suppose it's a benign change, >> but it /is/ a lot of code churn. > > When I tried doing this, I found I had to include <svn_hash.h> in every C > file that uses them, which is fairly close to every C file in the > project, and that made me think it would be better if we moved the > definitions into <svn_types.h> which is our "global" header file.
Since svn_hash.h includes svn_types.h, won't this be more like replacing the inclusion of the latter with the inclusion of the former? > Personally I don't mind the code churn and, for the purposes of > back-porting changes to 1.8.x, there is an advantage to doing it before > branching if we're going to do it at all (which I think we are). Speaking generally, I do mind the churn -- but this is, as was pointed out, a pretty benign change that requires no specialized domain knowledge to review. I think it's "safe enough" to go ahead and pull the trigger. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
