Perhaps we should then start by looking at the documentation of the public API, which states this requirement instead of qualifying a single function 3 levels deeper as having a problem without looking at the other places that have the same requirements 'as documented’.
I explicitly documented the requirement and even with this requirement it is a useful function for the cases as in libsvn_client.. Should we really repeat and discuss that at ever level? It is not a magic function that will solve everything for everyone. But that is why we have different API entry points for different features and not a single c function that performs every operation. Bertt Sent from Windows Mail From: Branko Čibej Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 2:00 PM To: Subversion Development On 20.12.2013 13:47, Bert Huijben wrote: > The way we use it now from libsvn_client is safe as we always > construct these sessions based on the state in svn_client_ctx_t, which > must outlive both Ra sessions. The svn_ra API is a separate, stand-alone public API. Your argument that the implementation is safe because of some incidental internals of libsvn_client is, frankly, nonsense. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion WANdisco // Non-Stop Data e. br...@wandisco.com
