On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 04:35:30PM +0100, Peter Lundblad wrote:
> > Malcolm Rowe writes:
> > > We can cover EPERM handling in an followup commit, if we decide that's
> > > appropriate.
> > >
> > I think it is appropriate, but I agree it should be a separate change.
> Looks like I'm going to have to reuse the APR_STATUS_IS_EPERM() macro
> that's currently defined in io.c. I could copy it to subst.c, but I'd
> prefer to move it into a header file. There doesn't seem to be anywhere
> particularly appropriate, so I was thinking include/private/svn_compat.h
> - anyone have any objections to that?
I actually already wrote that patch. However, I subsequently
discarded it, as at the time people were in favor of comparing the
apr_status_t against EPERM directly.
Personally, I don't have a strong preference one way or the other.
Received on Thu Feb 22 23:14:55 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored