Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:
> Index: subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_crawler.c
> ===================================================================
> --- subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_crawler.c (revision 11994)
> +++ subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_crawler.c (working copy)
> @@ -243,8 +243,7 @@
> /* If the entry is 'deleted' or 'absent', make sure the server
> knows it's gone... unless we're reporting everything, in
> which case it's already missing on the server. */
> - if ((current_entry->deleted || current_entry->absent)
> - && (! report_everything))
> + if (current_entry->deleted || current_entry->absent)
> {
> SVN_ERR (reporter->delete_path (report_baton, this_path, iterpool));
> continue;
>
> The problem is that this directly contradicts the "unless ..." part
> of the comment just above the modified lines.
Having looked at this for some time, I now think the correct patch is
as follows:
Index: subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_crawler.c
===================================================================
--- subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_crawler.c (revision 11994)
+++ subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_crawler.c (working copy)
@@ -241,12 +241,13 @@
/*** The Big Tests: ***/
/* If the entry is 'deleted' or 'absent', make sure the server
- knows it's gone... unless we're reporting everything, in
- which case it's already missing on the server. */
- if ((current_entry->deleted || current_entry->absent)
- && (! report_everything))
+ knows it's gone... */
+ if (current_entry->deleted || current_entry->absent)
{
- SVN_ERR (reporter->delete_path (report_baton, this_path, iterpool));
+ /* ...unless we're reporting everything, in which case it's already
+ missing on the server. */
+ if (! report_everything)
+ SVN_ERR (reporter->delete_path (report_baton, this_path, iterpool));
continue;
}
--
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 24 01:02:22 2004