On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> ...
> > > The problem with this approach is the scenario when the command is showing
> > > you info about a new item in the repository. In that scenario the
> > > svn_wc_entry_t is currently null because there is no entry in the WC. We
> > > did not feel comfortable changing this into a partially populated
> > > structure. This was also the main scenario where Subclipse absolutely
> > > needs to get a URL and Node kind. That is why we needed the second URL and
> > > kind fields. So, the only way the second URL can be removed is if you are
> > > willing to have svn_wc_entry_t in the structure that only has the URL
> > > populated (when it is a new file in the repository).
> >
> > Can't we just rename the URL field from ood_url to url and always populate
> > it with the entries URL. We can share this data with the svn_wc_entry if
> > it exists, so the cost is just an extra pointer in the svn_wc_status2_t
> > struct.
>
> We could do this Peter, though it would slightly complicate the
> implementation in that the data for that field might come from the
> repository in the case of a new item having been added to the repository
> since the last update of the working copy (which is effectively an out of
> date WC).
>
I don't understand. Does this mean the the URL fo the entry and the URL
"in the repository" are different? Doesn't make sense to me. Else, why not
just use the URL from the entry, and if there is no entry because it is an
added file, use the URL of some grandparent plus the path (as I suspect
the current code does today?).
You may need to clarify a bit...
Regards,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 4 22:04:58 2005