Julian Foad wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 10:59 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> I seem to be doing alot of talking to myself at the moment, but that's cool.
>
> I'm listening. Sorry that you didn't read my mind and know that's what I
> was doing. :-)
>
>> For the record, I think the correct-er of the fixes is the second patch.
>
> Your patch 1 (send user_args==NULL rather than uninitialised) is
> essential to fix this regression.
Okey dokey.
> Your patch 2 ((svn_io_run_diff): Don't check user_args for NULL-ness;
> consult the num_user_args instead) is bad: it will break this public API
> for clients that were relying on it working the way it did work, and
> initialising only 'user_args' but not 'num_user_args'. (Note also that
> the test for null occurs twice in the function and your patch changes
> only one occurrence.)
Ah, thanks.
> FWIW, it looks to me like this bug was introduced in r30053 in the
> calling code. The svn_io_run_diff() API has been stable for ages.
>
> The correct fix should include:
>
> * Your patch 1.
>
> * Update the doc string for svn_io_run_diff() to match the
> implementation, which is to say that user_args must be NULL to
> indicate no user args specified and thus get the default "-u".
> (Presently it's ambiguous on whether user_args need be NULL
> and/or num_user_args need be 0 to get that behaviour.)
Alright. I've some time, so I'll go this route.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-06-10 18:34:24 CEST