Dependency versioning question

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

Hey all,

I've got a question where I'm not quite sure what the answer "should"
be. While I wrote the rules on versioning components, it never talked
about cross-component and dependency versioning. For Subversion, we
said "all svn components should be at the same version".

But dependencies.

Within serf, we're thinking about new models for connection and
protocol handling. And bumping to 2.0 to make that happen. What is the
effect upon libsvn_ra_serf and svn in general?

My thinking is "no big deal". That upgrading to svn 1.9 (or 1.10 or
whatever) would require installation of serf 2.0. All svn APIs would
remain unchanged, per our own versioning guidelines (both source and
binary APIs).

Thoughts?

Cheers,
-g

Re: Dependency versioning question

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Within serf, we're thinking about new models for connection and
>> protocol handling. And bumping to 2.0 to make that happen. What is the
>> effect upon libsvn_ra_serf and svn in general?
>>
>> My thinking is "no big deal". That upgrading to svn 1.9 (or 1.10 or
>> whatever) would require installation of serf 2.0. All svn APIs would
>> remain unchanged, per our own versioning guidelines (both source and
>> binary APIs).
>
> Provided that we haven't exposed any API details of serf in our
> interface that's not a problem.  I believe the only dependency where
> we might run into such details would be APR since we do require the
> use of APR APIs in order to use our library.

I *do* want to switch serf over to pocore at some point (better
networking and pool mem free/reuse), but its disparate memory pool
system can still be managed using APR's pool cleanups. We shouldn't
see any leakage out of the RA API.

Cheers,
-g

RE: Dependency versioning question

[Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Reser [mailto:ben@reser.org]
> Sent: donderdag 6 juni 2013 02:01
> To: Greg Stein
> Cc: Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: Dependency versioning question
> 
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Within serf, we're thinking about new models for connection and
> > protocol handling. And bumping to 2.0 to make that happen. What is the
> > effect upon libsvn_ra_serf and svn in general?
> >
> > My thinking is "no big deal". That upgrading to svn 1.9 (or 1.10 or
> > whatever) would require installation of serf 2.0. All svn APIs would
> > remain unchanged, per our own versioning guidelines (both source and
> > binary APIs).
> 
> Provided that we haven't exposed any API details of serf in our
> interface that's not a problem.  I believe the only dependency where
> we might run into such details would be APR since we do require the
> use of APR APIs in order to use our library.

+1

	Bert

Re: Dependency versioning question

[Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>]

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Within serf, we're thinking about new models for connection and
> protocol handling. And bumping to 2.0 to make that happen. What is the
> effect upon libsvn_ra_serf and svn in general?
>
> My thinking is "no big deal". That upgrading to svn 1.9 (or 1.10 or
> whatever) would require installation of serf 2.0. All svn APIs would
> remain unchanged, per our own versioning guidelines (both source and
> binary APIs).

Provided that we haven't exposed any API details of serf in our
interface that's not a problem.  I believe the only dependency where
we might run into such details would be APR since we do require the
use of APR APIs in order to use our library.

Re: Dependency versioning question

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

+1 for "no big deal" too, I think.

Depending upon how far we take serf 2.0 and its APIs, a new libsvn_ra_serf2
library may be in order.  So, it'd be no different than all of the
libsvn_fs* and libsvn_wc internal changes.

If we altered the RA APIs, then that would be a no-no if we did it in a
backwards-incompatible manner.  -- justin


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I've got a question where I'm not quite sure what the answer "should"
> be. While I wrote the rules on versioning components, it never talked
> about cross-component and dependency versioning. For Subversion, we
> said "all svn components should be at the same version".
>
> But dependencies.
>
> Within serf, we're thinking about new models for connection and
> protocol handling. And bumping to 2.0 to make that happen. What is the
> effect upon libsvn_ra_serf and svn in general?
>
> My thinking is "no big deal". That upgrading to svn 1.9 (or 1.10 or
> whatever) would require installation of serf 2.0. All svn APIs would
> remain unchanged, per our own versioning guidelines (both source and
> binary APIs).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>