[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index


From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: 2007-03-28 17:42:13 CEST

Kamesh Jayachandran wrote:
> Hi All,
> Both ra_local and ra_svn returns 'SVN_ERR_FS_NOT_FOUND' when the
> requested path does not exist in the repository.
> ra_dav and ra_serf returns 'SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_PATH_NOT_FOUND'.
> Both Dan and Myself feel not to have such a special case for ra_dav.

The reason for the special case for ra_dav is that unlike ra_local and
ra_svn, the DAV plugins make requests of mod_dav_svn for things that don't
map conceptually to Subversion repository filesystem paths. You don't
MKACTIVITY on a Subversion filesystem path. You don't ask for OPTIONS on a
Subversion filesystem path. And so on.

Now, it's not clear to me what, if any, value we have in maintaining this
distinction, but I don't think this is just a case of developer's
accidentally failing to notice an already existing error code before
creating a new one.

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

Received on Wed Mar 28 17:42:31 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.