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

Re: svn commit: r34018 - in trunk/subversion: include libsvn_client libsvn_wc

From: Neels J. Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:23:21 +0100

Julian Foad wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 11:30 +0000, Julian Foad wrote:
>> On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 20:40 -0800, neels_at_tigris.org wrote:
>>> Author: neels
>>> Date: Sun Nov 2 20:40:11 2008
>>> New Revision: 34018
>>>
>>> Log:
>>> Remove the dir_closed() diff callback, it is now unused everywhere.
>> Hi Neels.
>>
>> Reasons for removing the USES of this callback: because there's nothing
>> we want them to do at the moment. Agreed. Thanks for pruning that dead
>> code.
>>
>> Reasons for removing the API and DRIVER of this callback: because we
>> don't believe it's a sensible and supportable feature, or we don't
>> believe that there can be any good use for it in the 1.6.x time frame.
>> I'm not aware of any such reasons. I think the dir_closed() callback is
>> a sensible complement to dir_opened(), and removing it may cause us
>> problems when we want to fix tree conflict handling bugs in 1.6.x time
>> frame.
>>
>> What do you think?

Well, using the TREE_CONFLICTED parameter is actually moving away from
having to have a dir_closed() callback. That's how I perceive the nature of
the diff callbacks: they don't have a child_baton passed around, so they are
supposed to get all the information on a node at the same time (this is
related to my intention to change added_dir() to also include prop changes,
which is the single exception as far as I've seen).

So I'm pretty confident we won't need the dir_closed() callback, at least
not for tree-conflicts. (Still, the dir_opened() is needed because it checks
an existing directory before going through the child nodes.)

>>
>> I notice also that we need to update the documentation for the
>> diff_callbacks3_t and diff_callbacks2_t. They mention dir_opened and
>> dir_closed, but they don't say when those functions are called relative
>> to the other functions, and they don't mention the "tree_conflicted"
>> parameter that is present in most of the diff_callbacks3_t functions.
>
> I've updated the doc strings in r34026/r34028/r34029.

Thanks! I'd like to change one to say TRUE and FALSE in upper case, because
that's what is used with svn_boolean_t. Is it standard practice in the doc
strings to write true and false in lower case?

~Neels

Received on 2008-11-05 05:23:53 CET

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