On Tue, 01 Aug 2006, Madan S. wrote:
> >>yeah, and I think we can use the existing update_wc_merge_info()
> >>(Which brings me to another point in a tangential direction - can we
> >>abstract the parse_merge_info() call into update_wc_merge_info()?
> >>Currently we call parse_merge_info() before calling
> >The call, yes. The routine, no (since we call it elsewhere).
> >It's already like this in my WC as I've been working on the
> >notification handling code (for skips, etc.). I'll factor some of
> >that out and make an incremental commit today.
> Do you mean 'parse_merge_info() must be called inside
> update_wc_merge_info()' - yes
> 'we can use update_wc_merge_info() for copy operations' - no
As of r20921, parse_merge_info() is called inside
update_wc_merge_info(). I was saying "no" to entirely removing
We might be able to use something like update_wc_merge_info() for copy
ops -- dunno yet.
> >IIUC, making a WC routine "loggy" consists of writing a set of
> >commands for an operation into a file (in XML, I believe), then
> >executing the commands in sequence after they've all been written to
> >the file.
> ah, yes. Karl explained this logging to me once. Will find out more about
> So, we need to do logging for all wc operations? I dont remember seeing
> logging for the svn:mergeinfo property manipulations?
We haven't added any special loggy-ness for the "svn:mergeinfo"
property. It's behavior is currently the same as other properties.
Received on Tue Aug 1 18:39:06 2006
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored