You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "Peter N. Lundblad" <pe...@famlundblad.se> on 2005/04/14 06:52:12 UTC
Re: svn commit: r14182 - branches/1.2.x
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 cmpilato@tigris.org wrote:
> Modified: branches/1.2.x/STATUS
> Url: http://svn.collab.net/viewcvs/svn/branches/1.2.x/STATUS?view=diff&rev=14182&p1=branches/1.2.x/STATUS&r1=14181&p2=branches/1.2.x/STATUS&r2=14182
> ==============================================================================
> --- branches/1.2.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ branches/1.2.x/STATUS Thu Apr 14 01:15:00 2005
> @@ -71,6 +71,17 @@
> Votes:
> +1: lundblad, jszakmeister
>
> + * r14180
> + Make the public locking API semantics for lock expiry match the internal
> + storage and known concerned caller's semantics.
> + Justification:
> + Removes needless double-conversions, and solves the, "Does apr_time_t
> + represent a moment in time or a span of time?" question. Only affects
> + APIs new to 1.2, so this is a chance to avoid some future baggage.
> + Votes:
> + +1: cmpilato
Does this require a restart of the 4 week soak? (We may want to do that
anyway, just wanting to be sure.)
Regards,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r14182 - branches/1.2.x
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 02:00 -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>"Peter N. Lundblad" <pe...@famlundblad.se> writes:
>
>> > Make the public locking API semantics for lock expiry match the internal
>> > storage and known concerned caller's semantics.
>>
>> Does this require a restart of the 4 week soak? (We may want to do that
>> anyway, just wanting to be sure.)
>
>That depends on whether or not the change is considered destabilizing.
>I don't personally think that it is.
Neither do I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r14182 - branches/1.2.x
Posted by "Peter N. Lundblad" <pe...@famlundblad.se>.
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> "Peter N. Lundblad" <pe...@famlundblad.se> writes:
>
> > > Make the public locking API semantics for lock expiry match the internal
> > > storage and known concerned caller's semantics.
> >
> > Does this require a restart of the 4 week soak? (We may want to do that
> > anyway, just wanting to be sure.)
>
> That depends on whether or not the change is considered destabilizing.
> I don't personally think that it is.
>
I was thinking about the API incompatibility clause of HACKING, but it was
no requirement to restart, just a recommendation to be careful.
I agree it shouldn't be destabilizing according to the log. Haven't
reviewed yet.
Thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r14182 - branches/1.2.x
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
"Peter N. Lundblad" <pe...@famlundblad.se> writes:
> > Make the public locking API semantics for lock expiry match the internal
> > storage and known concerned caller's semantics.
>
> Does this require a restart of the 4 week soak? (We may want to do that
> anyway, just wanting to be sure.)
That depends on whether or not the change is considered destabilizing.
I don't personally think that it is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org