On 3/19/07, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:19:09PM +0100, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> > On 3/17/07, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> 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
> > condition...
> >
> > Anybody any ideas?
> >
>
> Is the first perhaps intended for situations where we believe the entry
> _should_ have been found?
Well, my point is: when we expect to find none, we check the condition
and decide *not* to error instead of raising one of these 2...
So, in all other situations, we seem to expect an entry...
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 19 22:24:46 2007