[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r18291 - in trunk/subversion: libsvn_wc tests/cmdline

From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev_at_farside.org.uk>
Date: 2006-01-30 15:37:44 CET

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 08:32:59AM -0600, lundblad@tigris.org wrote:
> --- trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c (original)
> +++ trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/status.c Mon Jan 30 08:32:54 2006
> @@ -1155,13 +1155,14 @@
> /* Order is important here. We can't depend on parent_status->entry
> being non-NULL until after we've checked all the conditions that
> might indicate that the parent is unversioned ("unversioned" for
> - our purposes includes being an external). */
> + our purposes includes being an external or ignored item). */
> if (parent_status
> && (parent_status->text_status != svn_wc_status_unversioned)
> && (parent_status->text_status != svn_wc_status_deleted)
> && (parent_status->text_status != svn_wc_status_missing)
> && (parent_status->text_status != svn_wc_status_obstructed)
> && (parent_status->text_status != svn_wc_status_external)
> + && (parent_status->text_status != svn_wc_status_ignored)
> && (parent_status->entry->kind == svn_node_dir)
> && (eb->descend || (! pb)))
> {
>

Any reason that condition can't just be

if (parent_status
    && parent_status->entry
    && parent_status->entry->kind == svn_node_dir ...)

(The comment seems to suggest we're just checking a list of conditions
that determine whether ->entry is non-NULL: why can't we just check
->entry itself?)

Seems simpler and more futureproof, if it works.

Regards,
Malcolm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jan 30 15:40:50 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.