[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r11296 - in trunk/subversion: libsvn_client tests/clients/cmdline

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-10-14 20:35:38 CEST

jszakmeister@tigris.org writes:
> --- trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/export.c (original)
> +++ trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/export.c Fri Oct 8 17:54:12 2004
> @@ -124,6 +124,12 @@
> return SVN_NO_ERROR;
> }
>
> + /* If the revision is WORKING, then don't export directories that
> + haven't been committed yet. */
> + if (revision->kind != svn_opt_revision_working &&
> + entry->schedule == svn_wc_schedule_add)
> + return SVN_NO_ERROR;
> +

Does this comment really match the logic in the conditional?

> /* Try to make the new directory. If this fails because the
> directory already exists, check our FORCE flag to see if we
> care. */
> @@ -200,8 +206,10 @@
> svn_error_clear (err);
> }
>
> - /* don't copy it if it isn't versioned. */
> - if (! entry)
> + /* Don't copy it if it isn't versioned, or if the entry hasn't been
> + committed unless revision is WORKING. */
> + if (! entry || (revision->kind != svn_opt_revision_working &&
> + entry->schedule == svn_wc_schedule_add))
> continue;
>
> if (revision->kind != svn_opt_revision_working)

The part of the comment after the comma was hard to parse, mentally,
so I can't tell if it matches the logic in the second part of the
conditional. But the logic in that second half exactly the same as in
the earlier hunk, so I would expect the comments to roughly match
up...

Help?

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 14 22:25:28 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.