John Peacock wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
[About treating an empty has as efficiently as we treat NULL.]
>> That said, I tentatively suggest the attached patch. What do you
>> think of it?
>
> I think that looks good. I'm still not entirely convinced it wouldn't
> be better to always set NULL in svn_subst_build_keywords2(), but I can
> see your argument against that change on a code consistency basis alone.
>
>> Thanks. Again, it's not critical because the real meaning can be
>> inferred - the text is not significantly misleading. If you'd rather
>> leave it to me, that's fine, I'm happy to do it.
>
> If you wouldn't mind...
Both done in r16218.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Sep 23 00:01:08 2005