On 9/25/05, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ivan!
>
> On 9/23/05, zhakov@tigris.org <zhakov@tigris.org> wrote:
> > Author: zhakov
> > Date: Fri Sep 23 11:19:17 2005
> > New Revision: 16230
> >
> > Modified:
> > branches/wc-replacements/subversion/libsvn_wc/entries.c
> > branches/wc-replacements/subversion/tests/clients/cmdline/copy_tests.py
> >
> > Log:
> > Cleanup meaningless entry fields combinations when it gets modified.
> > This fixes deletion of replaced files.
> >
> > * subversion/libsvn_wc/entries.c
> > (fold_entry): Cleanup meaningless fields combination.
> > * subversion/tests/clients/cmdline/copy_tests.py:
> > (test_list): Remove XFail mark from delete_replaced_file test,
> > because change fixes it.
>
> We talked about this change last friday on IRC. You asked on dev@ in
> which routine to do the cleanup. Philip Martin responded that
> fold_entry was an odd place to him
> (http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=105631).
Little refinement: Philip Martin said that fold_scheduling is odd for
him, not fold_entry./
> Can anybody come up with arguments why one change or the other is
> better? From what Philip writes, I conclude he feels
> svn_wc__entry_modify is the better place to do the change. I'm
> looking for arguments rather than feelings though.
My arguments that change in fold_entry more simpler and doesn't
depends what is modified in entry.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on Sun Sep 25 19:18:11 2005