On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:51:09PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote: > So: What are we talking about here? > > An 'svn'-only user wants to see different error codes? > > (Perhaps he added patch over patch to make the numbers more visible in > MAINTAINER mode?)
First and foremost, can you please quit making it personal. The subject being discussed is whether r1501049 and r1501371 should be applied to 1.8.x (and, I guess, whether they should be backed out from trunk). What patches I may or may not have committed in the past is not relevant to the technical quality of those two revisions. Now, to your claim about seeing different error codes in 'svn', I repeatedly explained to you that this is not about svn's output, in maintainer mode or otherwise. This is about providing API users error numbers they can do something with --- without hardcoding 120171 in their source code (not to mention including serf.h from their source code, which cannot be assumed to be in C), without hardcoding the assumption that Serf is the only apr_status_t-using Subversion dependency, and without hardcoding the assumption that Serf APR_OS_START_USERERR codes and Subversion APR_OS_START_USERERR are disjoint. Now, having said that, I'll put my cards on the table. You repeatedly ignored my requests to name an API user whose code will be broken by this. You repeatedly ignored my explanations that this has nothing to do with the maintainer mode stack traces. You claimed that SVN_ERR_RA_SERF_WRAPPED_ERROR gets unwrapped, failed to corroborate that claim, and I think I have proven it wrong. So, I submit that your veto lacks a technical basis, and is therefore invalid, and has no standing. Feel free to provide a technical reason, of course. Cheers, Daniel
