RE: Re: [PATCH] (alternate fix for issue 900)

I didn't really get that bit either. I was kind of assuming it was some
sort of more specific/useful error message wrapping.

Bill

----
Do you want a dangerous fugitive staying in your flat?
No.
Well, don't upset him and he'll be a nice fugitive staying in your flat.
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Branko Cibej [mailto:brane@xbc.nu]
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 5:50 PM
> To: mark benedetto king
> Cc: dev@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] (alternate fix for issue 900)
> 
> mark benedetto king wrote:
> 
> >Bill Tutt convinced me that adding svn_error_cause() was not a good
> >idea (people might be tempted to use it).  I've inlined it instead.
> >As an added benefit, the scope of the patch is reduced.
> >
> >
> This is the wrong approach, regardless. We're wrapping the error chain
> already, and svn_handle_error will print out the whole chain. So the
> original "cause" should be apparent. Why isn't it?
> 
> --
> Brane Èibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org