Re: [PATCH] Fix for issue 1797 - take three

Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:

>>>>@@ -329,22 +329,29 @@
>>>> static svn_error_t *
>>>> do_open (svn_wc_adm_access_t **adm_access,
>>>> svn_wc_adm_access_t *associated,
>>>>+ const svn_wc_adm_access_t *root_associated,
>>> I don't see why you added this additional access baton parameter, it
>>> looks like you could just use associated.
>>
>> Look at the recursion. In the next subdirectory, associated has an empty
>> set.
>
> Could the recursive call pass associated rather than the new lock?

No, probably not. It looks like we need two access batons :-(

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org