Eric Gillespie <epg@pretzelnet.org> writes:
> Greg Hudson set me straight; he told me you were counting on the
> code that confused me not being executed. Ah, OK, now i get it.
> I got the answer to "please tell me it hasn't been intentionally
> broken" there.
I still had it wrong. Greg Hudson set me straight yet again,
and i think i finally understand. This is the crucial bit i
missed:
+ svn_delta_editor_t *ra_svn_editor = svn_delta_default_editor (pool);
So when i saw libsvn_client/commit.c:66 trying to call apply_text
(which was a NULL pointer), and saw that it was intentionally
NULL, i checked ra_dav. And over there, apply_text was *never*
set. I completely overlooked that ra_dav was doing calling this
svn_delta_default_editor function. I thought ra_svn had a NULL
in apply_text and ra_dav just had a random value. *That* looked
intentional. I said so, and said please tell me i'm missing
something. Well, i was.
Also, i think there's some confusion over what i mean by
"intentional". No one intentionally creates a bug. But some
projects operate under the HEAD-must-always-build rule (the only
sane way to go, IMNSHO) but others allow HEAD to be broken
sometimes. I have had co-workers who insisted that it was OK for
HEAD to be broken for a few days while they worked at a problem
iteratively. The idea of a branch was foreign to these people.
*That* is what i thought was happening here, and that's what i
mean by "intentionally broken".
--
Eric Gillespie <*> epg@pretzelnet.org
Build a fire for a man, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. -Terry Pratchett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Feb 2 02:29:02 2003