On 9/29/06, David Glasser <glasser@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 9/29/06, David Glasser <glasser@mit.edu> wrote:
> > I'm specifically proposing the following API change. What do folks
> > think?
>
> The previous API change wouldn't be good enough, since it'll need to
> return an svn_commit_info_t as well. (Should I explicitly state that
> passing in NULL for commit_info_p is OK if the target isn't an URL?)
Yes, I'd say that makes sense to document.
> There's also some validation and canonicalization in svn_wc_prop_set2
> that need to be factored out into libsvn_subr or something. Some of
> this is easy (don't set svn:ignore on files, strip whitespace around
> svn:keywords). Some of it... less so: there's a check that a
> svn:eol-style is reasonable, and a full-blown attempt to parse
> svn:externals with svn_wc_parse_externals_description2 (which doesn't
> take a wc_adm_access_t, at least). Dealing with these two might be a
> little hairy.
>
> This patch shows my current plan for svn_client_propset3:
Seems reasonable enough to me.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Sep 29 19:46:52 2006