Re: [PATCH] svn_wc_ventry(_ex) to eliminate heavily repeated code
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:19:09PM +0100, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 3/17/07, Malcolm Rowe <email@example.com> wrote:
> >I like this approach, although I wonder whether it's appropriate to
> >consolidate the existing error messages into one "%s is not under version
> >control" messages?
> Ok. I did that.
> As far as the first remark is concerned, I'm looking back at the
> adjusted patch and I'm wondering: What *is* the difference between 'No
> entry found' and "'%s' is unversioned"? Some errors have the 'no entry
> found' (which is also a different result code!) but I can't for the
> life of me figure out why we would have different result codes for
> these situations, especially because they're detected by the same
> Anybody any ideas?
Is the first perhaps intended for situations where we believe the entry
_should_ have been found?
Received on Mon Mar 19 22:22:30 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev