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

Re: svn commit: r14098 - in trunk: . subversion/libsvn_client subversion/tests/clients/cmdline

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-05-04 22:31:52 CEST

John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net> writes:
> Hmph... I was following the pattern that I saw in other files (the
> internal functions were document a lot less formally than
> public/semi-public ones). I can go back and update this though.

Thanks! (See "Document everything" in HACKING, btw. It is lamentable
that not all of our internal functions live up to this ideal.)

> I assume that it should be doxygenified? :-)

Nope, just use all caps for parameter names.

> svn_opt_revision_working, svn_opt_revision_base, and
> svn_opt_revision_comitted are the acceptable values. I'll make sure to
> document that as well as put in a few assert() statements.

Cool.

But not assert()! Just return an error, and document what the error
will be. Assertions check "can't happen" cases, stuff that's worth
exiting immediately for (i.e., there is a bug in the code itself).
Error checks are for situations where the code is good but the input
might be bad, which is what we'd have here.

> I missed some of the peg discussions, so I wasn't certain if it was really
> feasible to specify a peg revision on a local path. I actually tried it
> on the command line, and the peg revision is something other than
> unspecified if you @REVISION syntax (my-local-file@BASE, for example).
> From my understanding of the peg revision, it's where we're supposed to
> start looking as far as history tracing is concerned. If it's anything
> other than unspecified, base, or committed, then I assumed we'd have to
> ask the repository for that information (how would I know if the file was
> called x at revision y without contacting the repository?). Hence the
> check. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me, and I'll either remove the
> redundant code or document why I chose to check the peg revision.

No, you're right. We would have to contact the repository to
determine the node identity, but (interestingly enough) we might not
have to contact the repository for the actual *contents*, since we
might have them locally. Your code is correct as it stands, so I'm
not suggesting a change. If you want to add a comment, that'd be
great, but no big deal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 4 23:04:58 2005

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