Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-06-26 Thread Stefan
On 6/27/2016 03:43, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Stefan wrote on Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 02:49:51 +0200: >>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:26:27PM +0200, Stefan wrote: I'm just wondering why the backward compatibility for 1.9.0 (and 1.8.0) doesn't state 100% here [1]. Checking out the detai

Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-06-26 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Stefan wrote on Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 02:49:51 +0200: > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:26:27PM +0200, Stefan wrote: > >> I'm just wondering why the backward compatibility for 1.9.0 (and 1.8.0) > >> doesn't state 100% here [1]. > >> > >> Checking out the details on 1.9.0 [2] and there the details on >

Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-06-26 Thread Stefan
On 6/27/2016 01:43, James McCoy wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:26:27PM +0200, Stefan wrote: >> I'm just wondering why the backward compatibility for 1.9.0 (and 1.8.0) >> doesn't state 100% here [1]. >> >> Checking out the details on 1.9.0 [2] and there the details on >> libsvn_subr [3] suggest

Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-06-26 Thread James McCoy
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 09:26:27PM +0200, Stefan wrote: > I'm just wondering why the backward compatibility for 1.9.0 (and 1.8.0) > doesn't state 100% here [1]. > > Checking out the details on 1.9.0 [2] and there the details on > libsvn_subr [3] suggests 3 functions were removed: > - svn__apr_hash

Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-06-26 Thread Stefan
On 6/25/2016 07:45, Ponomarenko Andrey wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working on a new project for backward compatibility analysis of the Linux > ABIs. The report for Subversion base libraries has been recently added to the > project: http://abi-laboratory.pro/tracker/timeline/subversion/ > > The report