Noorul Islam K M <noorul_at_collab.net> writes:
> Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> writes:
>
>> Noorul Islam K M wrote on Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 14:28:49 +0530:
>>
>>> Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> writes:
>>> > Noorul Islam K M wrote on Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:55:55 +0530:
>>> >> Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> writes:
>>> >> > Noorul Islam K M wrote on Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 14:15:48 +0530:
>>> >> >> SVN_ERR(svn_wc__node_get_repos_info(&(info->repos_root_URL),
>>> >> >> - NULL,
>>> >> >> + exclude ?
>>> >> >> + &(info->repos_UUID) : NULL,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Why?
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> I thought I should not make changes to existing behaviour. I think it is
>>> >> safe to just pass &(info->repos_UUID) in both cases.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > ... and? What is the "change to existing behaviour" you're talking about? (I
>>> > guess it's printing the repository UUID for excluded nodes?)
>>>
>>> As of now in trunk for this call NULL is passed reference to repository
>>> UUID. I thought I will keep that as such and pass a reference in the
>>> case of excluded. That is why I initially included that condition. Later
>>> I found that it is okay to pass a reference in both cases.
>>
>> You're just describing in words the syntactic difference between the old
>> and new patches. That doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know,
>> and doesn't answer my question.
>
> I meant existing behaviour of "tree_conflict" not "excluded." And this
> patch does not change that even if I pass a reference instead of
> NULL. Also with this patch it prints repository UUID for excluded nodes.
> I hope this answers your question.
>
Just pinging again so that this one is not lost.
Thanks and Regards
Noorul
Received on 2011-02-16 09:05:32 CET