It looks O.K. to me. If the tests pass, go ahead and commit. I have two
comments below, but I don't think they're serious enough to hold up the
commit.
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> if (! entry)
> return svn_error_createf
>- (SVN_ERR_WC_PATH_NOT_FOUND, NULL,
>- "svn_client_switch: '%s' is not under version control", path);
>+ (SVN_ERR_UNVERSIONED_RESOURCE, NULL,
>+ "'%s' is an unversioned resource", path);
>
>
[...]
>@@ -123,13 +123,13 @@
> SVN_ERR (svn_wc_entry (&session_entry, anchor, adm_access, FALSE, pool));
> if (! session_entry)
> return svn_error_createf
>- (SVN_ERR_WC_PATH_NOT_FOUND, NULL,
>- "svn_client_switch: '%s' is not under version control", anchor);
>+ (SVN_ERR_UNVERSIONED_RESOURCE, NULL,
>+ "'%s' is not under version control", anchor);
>
>
:-)
I like the second variant better.
[...]
>Index: subversion/libsvn_client/revisions.c
>===================================================================
>--- subversion/libsvn_client/revisions.c (revision 7744)
>+++ subversion/libsvn_client/revisions.c (working copy)
>@@ -55,9 +55,7 @@
> || (revision->kind == svn_opt_revision_head)))
> {
> return svn_error_create
>- (SVN_ERR_CLIENT_RA_ACCESS_REQUIRED, NULL,
>- "svn_client__get_revision_number: "
>- "need ra_lib and session for date or head revisions.");
>+ (SVN_ERR_CLIENT_RA_ACCESS_REQUIRED, NULL, NULL);
> }
>
>
If this doesn't need a custom message, then ...
> if (revision->kind == svn_opt_revision_number)
>@@ -81,8 +79,7 @@
> if (path == NULL)
> return svn_error_create
> (SVN_ERR_CLIENT_VERSIONED_PATH_REQUIRED, NULL,
>- "svn_client__get_revision_number: "
>- "need a version-controlled path to fetch local revision info.");
>+ "Need a version-controlled path to fetch local revision info.");
>
>
... why does this need one?
--
Brane Čibej <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
Received on Fri Nov 14 20:06:22 2003