On Tue, 03 Apr 2007, Peter Lundblad wrote:
> Daniel Rall writes:
> > On Tue, 03 Apr 2007, Peter Lundblad wrote:
> > > firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > ...
> > > > - * @a path_or_url is a WC path or repository URL. @a revision is the
> > > > - * revision at which to get @a path's merge info.
> > > > + * @a path_or_url is a WC path or repository URL. If @a path_or_url
> > > > + * is a WC path, @a revision is ignored in preference to @a
> > > > + * path_or_url's @c BASE revision. If @a path_or_url is a URL, @a
> > >
> > > AFAICT from the code, this is WORKING, not BASE, right?
> > As we're referring to a revision number, the number for WORKING and
> > BASE are identical. At the time I thought saying BASE would make this
> > more clear, but I really don't feel strongly about it.
> I saw you already fixed this, but just for the record: if you have merged
> things locally, but not committed yet, then this API will return the local
> merge info, right? That's why it is *important* to say WORKING and not BASE
Well, sort of.
If you have local changes to the merge target's -- or target's
parents' -- merge info, we never contact the repository, so don't
actually ever use REVISION at all. We only use REVISION when
contacting the repository, and in that case use the BASE revision.
So, while we do sometimes get merge info for WORKING, we're not
actually using its revision number, which is what that doc string is
referring to. *shrug*
Received on Wed Apr 4 19:35:28 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored