On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 10.04.2015 11:20, Julian Foad wrote: > > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > >> * svn_wc__conflict_description2_dup > >> Simply move this private API to svn_wc_private.h. > >> Ideally, people would never have called it but clients > >> might not have had a choice. So, we must keep it in > >> the ABI but remove it from the public API. > > On reading this, at first I found myself wanting to argue that we have > > no duty to maintain private APIs and that we should simply delete it. > > > > Then I swung towards arguing that it's more important to avoid > > needlessly breaking apps when users upgrade the libraries (even though > > it's the app's author's fault), and so we should to keep it (at least > > in the ABI). > > > > But these arguments are not the right way to make this decision. We > > should follow our policy. > > > > If we make an individual decision in each case, then it is likely that > > upgrading our libraries will remove some proportion of the old private > > symbols and so break some of the apps that used any private symbols. A > > decision to keep one particular symbol won't help any app that also > > used another that we didn't decide to keep. > > > > So what is our policy? (We should write it down if we haven't already > done so.) > > > If it's declared in a public header, then it's a public API regardless > of how many consecutive underscores there are in the name. We can't > remove it. > Alright, less work to do for me then. I was under the impression that we had moved some private API from the public headers to the private sub- folder for the 1.9 release. Hence, the proposal to do the same here. -- Stefan^2.
