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

Re: [PATCH] Issue #2285

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-05-03 05:45:11 CEST

"Peter N. Lundblad" <peter@famlundblad.se> writes:
> I'm uncomfortable with this idea. It makes invoking the log message func
> with 0 commit items mean "don't ask the user, but give me a message if it
> was specified by some other means" or something like that. That's not
> documented in the API and I don't think we can introduce such a change and
> be compatible.
> Also, to be honest, I think it is very hacky. Why not just make the
> cmdline client check that -F or -m weren't specified when an operation was
> invoking without an URL? I don't think libsvn_client should ask for a
> message unless it really wants one.

The problem is that the command-line client does not *know* if the
target is a URL or not. That's not determined until we get way down
into the libsvn_client, at which point the only way we know whether or
not a log message was obtained is via the log message callback. I'm
open to suggestions, but so far I've been unable to think of a less
hacky way to do it :-(.

As for the log message function: I'm only depending on the actual
behavior of our implementation (since I didn't change it), so although
technically there might be a compatibility concern here, I don't think
it would be a problem in practice. We should document the behavior if
we're going to depend on it, though, yes.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 3 06:17:54 2005

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.