Re: Changing the log API is not worth it

On 06/14/2012 11:46 PM, Julian Foad wrote: Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: Yesterday, I discovered an inconsistency in our log API. svn_revnum_t is a long while the "limit" parameter is an int. It is not semantically necessary to be able to request an arbitrarily large batch of log messages -- in othe

Re: Changing the log API is not worth it

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > >> Yesterday, I discovered an inconsistency in our log API. >> svn_revnum_t is a long while the "limit" parameter is >> an int. > > It is not semantically necessary to be able to request an arbitrarily large > batch of

Re: Changing the log API is not worth it

Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > Yesterday, I discovered an inconsistency in our log API. > svn_revnum_t is a long while the "limit" parameter is > an int. It is not semantically necessary to be able to request an arbitrarily large batch of log messages -- in other words, for the "limit" parameter to be

Changing the log API is not worth it

Hi all, Yesterday, I discovered an inconsistency in our log API. svn_revnum_t is a long while the "limit" parameter is an int. Since we have a practical limit of 2^31 on our revision numbers and because int is (at least) 32 bits on all our targets, switching the limit parameter to long is a pret