Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:
> I could see how there might be one or two other error codes we should
> check in addition to APR_ENOTDIR (though I can't guess what they would
> be). But I don't see how *all* error codes can be interpreted to mean
> the same thing, which is what the current code does.
Gaw, longwindedness. I never claimed that all error codes mean the
same thing -- I claimed that my patch worked where yours did not. I
furthermore could have claimed that my patch did not introduce any new
error-prone conditions than already existed in that function.
I totally agree that we should be more choosy about the error
conditions in that piece of code; it's likely that APR_ENOTDIR isn't
always the thing we get back because we have this neat concept of
being able to nest errors, which introduces the opportunity for the
top-most svn_error_t structure's apr_err member to change from what
may have been an original APR_ENOTDIR. I dunno what was going on
there, I just know that adding the extra check for the specific
apr_status_t made things that used to work, work no more. :-)
My goal with the patch was to help you get further along in your local
prime objective -- to get checksums recorded in the working copy --
not to help you foolproof libsvn_wc, dude. You can do the
foolproofing any way you please, so long as the final product works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 12 21:00:51 2002