> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. Michael Pilato [mailto:cmpilato_at_collab.net]
> Sent: vrijdag 5 oktober 2012 14:49
> To: Ben Reser
> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1394332 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_client.h
>
> On 10/04/2012 10:06 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:48 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> wrote:
> >> On 10/04/2012 09:46 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> >>> Perhaps you meant something like:
> >>>
> >>> "... it will enter versioned directories, scheduling any unversioned
> >>> children thereof for addition."
> >>
> >> Sorry -- I just saw that you fixed the *unversioned* bit. My additional
> >> questions remain:
> >>
> >>> But why only #svn_depth_infinity? Will it not do the same (to different
> >>> depths, of course) for #svn_depth_files and #svn_depth_immediates?
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > [[[
> > When used with @a depth it will enter versioned directories (per the
> > rules of the argument), and schedule unversioned children.
> > ]]]
> >
>
> Honestly, the original phrasing of the docstring remains a better starting
> point, in my opinion. Your changes lose the context that all this
> discussion about depth and unversioned items in a versioned tree are still
> tried primarily to the use of the force flag. So if it were up to me, I
> would restore that paragraph to the state it was in and make only minor
> changes:
>
> * If @a force is not set and @a path is already under version
> * control, return the error #SVN_ERR_ENTRY_EXISTS. If @a force is
> * set, do not error on already-versioned items. When used on a
> * directory in conjunction with a @a depth value greater than
> * #svn_depth_empty, this has the effect of scheduling for addition
> * any unversioned files and directories scattered within even a
> * versioned tree (up to @a depth).
Currently this function fails with an error when called on the working copy root, with and without force set to TRUE.
(Probably because we originally handled force to suppress some light errors, while we can't add a working copy root to its parent)
Maybe we should fix this as well if we are touching this code anyway?
Bert
Received on 2012-10-05 15:30:15 CEST