On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Paul Burba wrote:
> Made your recommended changes (both here and from IRC). Committed
> Some comments below:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Rall [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 12:59 PM
> > To: Paul Burba
> > Cc: SVN Dev; Kamesh Jayachandran
> > Subject: Re: [merge-tracking]: Don't combine repos mergeinfo
> > with local mergeinfo if the later is modified.
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Paul Burba wrote:
> > > +svn_error_t *svn_wc__props_modified(svn_boolean_t *modified_p,
> > > + const char *path,
> > > + apr_hash_t **which_props,
> > > + svn_wc_adm_access_t
> > *adm_access,
> > > + apr_pool_t *pool);
> > > +
> > I'd rather expect svn_wc_props_modified_p() to be calling
> > this new routine, rather than vice-versa. If WHICH_PROPS is
> > NULL, we could bail out of the old svn_wc_props_modified_p()
> > logic earlier.
> I created one private helper function in props.c, modified_props()
Even though we stopped using svn_wc__props_modified() per Peter's
suggestion, I'd keep it around now that it's nicely factored.
> > Also, is there any overlap with svn_client__get_prop_from_wc()?
> To the extent we are getting props yes, but
> svn_client__get_prop_from_wc() only gets one prop and doesn't tell
> us if it was modified.
I was wondering how much implementation these routines are sharing,
and whether it would make sense for them to share more...
> > We call svn_client__get_prop_from_wc() from
> > svn_client__parse_merge_info(), which is in turn called from
> > a loop inside get_wc_merge_info() (meaning we're probably
> > doing some redudant work here).
> Hmmm, maybe bulk up get_wc_merge_info() so it knows not only if
> mergeinfo was inherited, but also if it is locally modfied?
This is a moot point now, yes?
Received on Sat Mar 31 02:18:28 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored