On 19.03.2014 14:17, Philip Martin wrote: > How do we fix this mess? We could change the server implementation of > the protocol to match the documentation, but that would risk breaking > third party clients.
A protocol implementation bug is still a bug. We fix it and describe the fix in the release notes; we've had other cases of API errata. > We could declare want-iprops to be an error and remove it, that also > risks breaking third party client. We could change the documentation > of the protocol to match the released implementation, but that would > mean accepting the "? foo" form rather than "(? foo)" and I seem to > recall that the later is preferred as it's easier to extend. Unless the documentation is clearly bogus (and in this case, it's not), our implementation should match the documentation. The only problem is that older clients might not work with a 1.9 server; but there's not much we can do about that, short of accepting both forms of the command, and I think that would be worse. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion WANdisco // Non-Stop Data e. br...@wandisco.com
