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

Re: svn_wc_status suggestion

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2001-10-19 17:29:03 CEST

Yoshiki Hayashi <yoshiki@xemacs.org> writes:
> I got up today, gave more thought about this, and changed my
> mind. Instead of not returning an error, I suggest creating
> a new error, say SVN_WC_NOT_VERSIONED, and return it if a
> given file or directory is not under version control.
>
> Current behavior is (in pseudo code):
>
> touch new-file
> svn_wc_status(&status, new-file)
> -> Returns SVN_NO_ERROR
> status points to a valid svn_status_t with status->entry == NULL
>
> mkdir new-dir
> svn_wc_status(&status, new-dir)
> -> Returns SVN_WC_OBSTRUCTED_UPDATE
> status is unchanged
>
> New behavior:
>
> Both returns SVN_WC_NOT_VERSIONED with status unchanged.
>
> If it is OK, I'll write a patch. Then I'll experiment more
> and see what I can do to solve issue #491.

That seems reasonable, yeah -- at least it's consistent between files
and dirs, unlike our current code.

But if that error is going to be trapped a lot (i.e., not treated as a
real error), then perhaps we should just return success but with new
status code `svn_status_not_versioned'? (Or maybe that's what
`svn_status_none' is supposed to mean? Ben can answer, and we should
document whatever the answer is).

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:45 2006

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