Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:44:01AM -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>>>> and it is aborting because **fmt is 'b'. Count is 6, nesting level is 0.
>>>>> I think the pattern specified in serve.c:log_cmd line 1557 must have
>>>>> an optional parameter wrong or need one added, but I haven't figured
>>>>> it out yet.
>>>> Just guessing, but is it because the pattern includes an optional
>>>> boolean? We don't support those in ra_svn -- there's no way to indicate
>>>> back to the caller whether the parameter was present or not.
>>> Is there another way to pass an optional boolean? Couldn't the caller
>>> assume some value, in this case FALSE, if the parameter isn't present?
>> It could, but the parsing code has no way to communicate that back,
>> because it's expecting a svn_boolean_t *. (I mean, I suppose it _could_
>> just not touch the value and rely on the caller to set the default
>> _first_, but that would be different to how we handle other optional
>> I think for other cases we may have transmitted a boolean inside an
>> optional tuple, e.g. (?b). That's a bit sucky, though - it's using the
>> implementation constraints to drive the interface.
> I was surprised to see that naked "?b" in the protocol string. Try
> Malcolm's suggestion -- we've had to do that in other places as well.
r25242 should do the trick, but I don't have a 1.4.3 server to test it
against. DJ, could you test it for me?
Received on Thu May 31 22:52:39 2007