On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:19:02AM -0500, email@example.com wrote:
> Greg Stein <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I don't understand the rationale for this function.
> Rationale? Is that a prerequisite for code submission? :-)
No :-) ... I should have used the word "requirement" ... i.e. how / where
does it get used. Which you explained wonderfully.
> So, what I really need is a way to say, "Mr. Update Editor Driver, I
> want you to have full knowledge of the directory A/D, but I need you
> promise to only pay attention to the entry G in that directory."
> And svn_repos_update complies.
Is dir_delta obsolete? Does repos_update handle both dirs and files? If not,
then can we make it so?
[ they are just *so* close, it is a shame to have two APIs which only
slightly vary, in non-obvious ways ]
> Perhaps I should put all that in svn_repos.h ?
Please. Your description is great, but that information certainly wasn't
"extractable" in any easy form from the header. When somebody needs to build
code, and needs to choose an API, then the guidance will be helpful.
> > And *WHAT* is the reason for neither of them calling close_edit? Both of
> > them call set_target_revision and replace_root, so why not close_edit? It is
> > a pain in the butt for users of these functions to never touch the editor
> > *except* to have to go and clean up after the function, using a close_edit.
> > Why?
All righty. Let's say that close_edit will go into dir_delta unless Jim (or
anybody else) can explain why it shouldn't.
> > Further, this whole thing for creating an svn_string_t for a *CONSTANT* is
> > *really* started to peeve me. The darned function isn't going to do any
> > modification of the string, so why use an svn_string_t?
> <snip svn_string_t micro-rant>
> I have no complaints with an svn_string_t review occurring in the
> future, but right now my primary concern is to make the stuff work.
> When Subversion is in such shape that I feel I can spare more time to
> debatable stylistic issues, perhaps I'll do the review myself. Anyone
> else wishing to perform such a review right now is welcome to do so.
> Me? I'm plugging away toward a golden one-point-oh.
No problem. That part wasn't directed at you :-)
I just want to bring it up occasionally, and especially when it gets in the
way sometimes. Keep it in people's heads. As with you, when we have a bit of
breathing room, I'll want to do a review, too. (of course, that presumes an
acceptance for using "const char *" in some places)
The obvious problem is using svn_string_t in some places, and const char *
in others. Consistency can be good sometimes.
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:29 2006