"Sander Striker" <striker@apache.org> writes:
> Well, I would, but since I'm on holiday in a few hours and offline for
> 2 weeks I'll defer that to someone else ;)
>
> In short: it returns appropiate status codes for the entries that would
> error when STRICT is set (svn_wc_status_absent and svn_wc_status_obstructed).
Thanks, that's enough for me to do it, which I will then.
> > I think maybe SVN_ERR_WC_PATH_NOT_FOUND? Just based on the error
> > description string, it seems like it might more appropriate. In any
> > case, whichever error code you choose, probably should make the public
> > documentation of the function state the error and the circumstances
> > under which it is returned.
>
> *nod*
I'll take care of that too, then.
> > > + if (statstruct->text_status == svn_wc_status_obstructed)
> > > + {
> > > + /* ### Do we need to invent a new error code for this case? */
> > > + return svn_error_createf (SVN_ERR_CLIENT_UNVERSIONED,
> > > + 0, NULL, pool,
> > > + "'%s' is in the way of the resource "
> > > + "actually under revision control.",
> > > + name);
> > > + }
> >
> > Yeah, I think so. The problem is more like "OBSTRUCTED_STATUS" or
> > something... ?
>
> Ok. You are aware that this changes the error codes below the client error
> code block (they all are bumped 1).
That's true whenever we add a new error code right now, yeah. You're
probably thinking about issue #702, which will be resolve soon, and it
doesn't really if this particular error code gets added before or
after that.
> I just picked one. I didn't want to overload '!' since that means absent.
> Any character is ok by me, which is why I couldn't come up with a good one :)
Okay, I'll think about it, talk it over, and do something.
Thanks!,
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Aug 12 22:50:39 2002