Philip Martin writes:
> Mathias.Weinert@gfa-net.de writes:
[...]
>
> I was tempted to apply this patch, but your email client has mangled
> it and I got several rejects, see the above lines for example.
Sorry for this, I wasn't aware about it.
[...]
> >
> > /* Print the node. */
> > SVN_ERR (svn_utf_cstring_from_utf8 (&name_native,
> > svn_path_basename (path, pool),
> > pool));
>
> I noticed that the above conversion was redundant so I removed it in
> r13957.
>
> > + if(!full_paths)
> > + print_path = svn_path_basename (path, pool);
> > + else
> > + print_path = path;
> > SVN_ERR (svn_cmdline_printf (pool, "%s%s",
> > - svn_path_basename (path, pool),
> > + print_path,
> > is_dir ? "/" : ""));
> >
> > if (show_ids)
>
> You might like to update the patch and submit it again. For extra
> points add a regression test to svnlook_tests.py that runs the new
> code.
>
> --
> Philip Martin
I now made a new patch against revision 13968 and attached it to this
mail.
I hope that it is in the right format and that you can read and use it.
I also tried to do some python programming. I have no idea if it is o.k.
and
if it is what you expected. I added two 'svnlook tree' calls in the first
test
in svnlook_tests.py. They both check if 'svnlook tree --full-paths' fits
the
normal 'svnlook tree' results but don't test the output of 'svnlook tree'
itself.
If it is usefull: use it, if not: forget it ;-)
Mathias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 6 21:40:38 2005