On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ivan Zhakov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 August 2014 15:34, Stefan Fuhrmann <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > At the SHF hackathon, we talked what tools should be installed > > by default and which should be part of tools. > > > > We decided to make > > > > * svn-bench (reported as useful in the field) and > I agree that 'svn-bench' could be useful for users, but what is the > reason for non-standard naming? Why this tool is not named 'svnbench' > ? > This has already been brought up here: http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2014-08/0221.shtml Personally, I'd be fine with renaming it. Others think we shouldn't do it because of "released". Realistically, we will break hardly anybody's setup by renaming it. > * svnfsfs (disaster recovery tools should be available by default) > > > I doubt that 'svnfsfs' can be moved to "main" Subversion in the > current state because it uses internal library headers and functions > from libsvn_fs_fs: > [[[ > #include "../libsvn_fs_fs/index.h" > #include "../libsvn_fs_fs/pack.h" > #include "../libsvn_fs_fs/rev_file.h" > #include "../libsvn_fs_fs/util.h" > ]]] > > Have you considered this? Only to the degree that I mentioned that the tool links against libsvn_fs_fs directly instead of using the loader. People seemed fine with that. > What is about ABI/API issues? You have a point there. Those functions probably need to be exported like any other private API that we use (Windows DLL exports come to mind). > Note that we > never include such headers in current Subversion code except > "fs-loader.h" and tests. > Would moving the declarations (2 structs, 10 functions) to a new "include/private/svn_fs_fs_private.h" be sufficient in your opinion? -- Stefan^2.
