cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> Nuutti Kotivuori <naked@iki.fi> writes:
>> Nuutti Kotivuori wrote:
>>> Just a quick review before commit, because it's been ages since I
>>> last committed anything.
>>>
>>> Log message: Taught the xml log output to take advantage of the
>>> new --incremental option that was added.
>>
>> Since you guys seem to be doing tarball right now, I'm a bit unsure
>> what to do with this. The change seems fine and tests pass - but I
>> don't know whether I should commit it right now or later on or even
>> if it matters any.
>
> I'd wait until after the tarball,
Actually, it's already committed.
> but I have some questions about the patch. It looks like depending
> on the way you run the program, you get different DTD compliance. I
> think you should just lose the <log></log> items altogether, and
> simply have the collection of <logentry> items. --incremental would
> do nothing different except omit the <?xml> tag.
Um, it's not a well-formed XML document if there are several
root-level elements. And if the output isn't entirely well-formed,
there is no reason to output the XML declaration either.
So - I could go for dropping the --incremental option altogether and
have the default output only have <logentry> items always. People can
do their own wrapping if they want it as a well-formed document just
as well. Would you consider this as a better choice?
-- Naked
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 29 23:02:54 2002