On Nov 21, 2007 11:25 AM, Daniel Rall <dlr@collab.net> wrote:
> Before talking about removing it, we need to understand why Ben added
> it in the first place. My guess is that it's so that external library
> consumers can acquire the write-lock for the conflicted area of the WC
> -- which has already been write-locked by a merge/update/switch
> process -- in their conflict resolution callbacks. If I'm correct, we
> probably shouldn't remove it (but might want to better-document it).
Dan is right -- it's for the convenience of 3rd-party
conflict-handling callbacks, like those in TortoiseSVN or Subclipse.
Instead of just saying "here's a path in conflict", we're also saying,
"and here's an access_baton object you can use to grab its entries
file, if you want to inspect closely." It's not critical, but it
seems silly to have the callback go through the work of generating its
own access_baton when libsvn_wc already has one ready to go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 21 20:29:10 2007