On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Kamesh Jayachandran wrote:
> Daniel Rall wrote:
> >Kamesh, this works great! I noticed that it doesn't use the RA
> >session reparenting suggested by Peter Lundblad -- any particular
> >reason for that?
> Yes. After sending the patch last week, I thought of trying reparent
> api, but could not do so.
> Yes, reparenting is the way to go.
> Find the attached patch.
Thanks Kamesh, I'll take a look.
> >Also, there's some error handling in
> >get_implied_merge_info() to account for locally-added but uncommitted
> >versioned resources; is it still correct as written (e.g. do we still
> >need the test for SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_REQUEST_FAILED)? Seems a little odd
> Yes we still need this.
> In this case ra_dav layer returns 'SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_PATH_NOT_FOUND' not
> >that there's no special-casing for ra_svn's protocol.
> ra_svn returns SVN_ERR_FS_NOT_FOUND like ra_local. So no need to special
I wonder if there's a way to smuggle that same error code back to the
client over DAV?
Received on Tue Mar 27 21:47:21 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored