Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-07-05 Thread Greg Stein
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Ponomarenko Andrey < andrewponomare...@yandex.ru> wrote: > 28.06.2016, 03:04, "Greg Stein": > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Greg Stein wrote on Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 07:29:11 -0500: > > I've reviewed the reports, and it looks like we've

Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-07-05 Thread Ponomarenko Andrey
28.06.2016, 03:04, "Greg Stein":On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:Greg Stein wrote on Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 07:29:11 -0500: > I've reviewed the reports, and it looks like we've maintained all our ABI > guarantees. The changes are what I would expect. > > Thank you for this! +1 o

Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-06-30 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Greg Stein wrote on Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 19:04:15 -0500: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf > wrote: > > > Greg Stein wrote on Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 07:29:11 -0500: > > > I've reviewed the reports, and it looks like we've maintained all our ABI > > > guarantees. The changes are what

Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-06-27 Thread Greg Stein
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Greg Stein wrote on Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 07:29:11 -0500: > > I've reviewed the reports, and it looks like we've maintained all our ABI > > guarantees. The changes are what I would expect. > > > > Thank you for this! > > +1 on both counts. >

Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-06-27 Thread Stefan Hett
On 6/27/2016 1:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Greg Stein > wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Stefan mailto:luke1...@posteo.de>> wrote: >... And now I also remember and realize that these removed symbols were

Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-06-27 Thread Greg Stein
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Stefan wrote: > >... > >> And now I also remember and realize that these removed symbols were >> actually private ones never intended to be exported (aka: double _ in >> the name). > > To be clear: they WERE

Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-06-27 Thread Greg Stein
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Stefan wrote: >... > And now I also remember and realize that these removed symbols were > actually private ones never intended to be exported (aka: double _ in > the name). So 1.8/1.9 corrected this and ABI compatibility for these > were intentionally broken. >

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

Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-06-25 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Greg Stein wrote on Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 07:29:11 -0500: > I've reviewed the reports, and it looks like we've maintained all our ABI > guarantees. The changes are what I would expect. > > Thank you for this! +1 on both counts. Perhaps we could run this on candidate tarballs as part of the releas

Re: ABI changes analysis

2016-06-25 Thread Greg Stein
This is freakin' HOT. Very nice work! I've reviewed the reports, and it looks like we've maintained all our ABI guarantees. The changes are what I would expect. Thank you for this! Cheers, -g On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Ponomarenko Andrey < andrewponomare...@yandex.ru> wrote: > Hello, >

ABI changes analysis

2016-06-25 Thread Ponomarenko Andrey
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 is generated with the help of the abi-compliance-checker,