Julian Foad wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 02:22 +0100, Neels J. Hofmeyr wrote:
>> about making "info" use svn_wc__walk_entries_and_tc():
>> svn_wc__walk_entries_and_tc() forces calling svn_wc_walk_entries3() with
>> SHOW_HIDDEN = TRUE.
>> However, "info" currently calls svn_wc_walk_entries3() with SHOW_HIDDEN = FALSE.
>>
>> My immediate thought would be to have the SHOW_HIDDEN flag in
>> svn_wc__walk_entries_and_tc()'s signature as well and thus allow both TRUE
>> and FALSE. However, do you already know it won't work due to design?
>
> Yes, that would be nice, and it could be made to work. Most callers of
> any "walk_entries" function don't want to see hidden nodes. (Just 2 of
> the approx. 13 callers of svn_wc_walk_entries3() set "show_hidden =
> TRUE".)
>
> I had a go the other day at rewriting this "walk_entries" interface to
> include all the options as bitwise flags in a single 'options' argument.
> See the attached patch. Calls would look like:
>
> return svn_wc_walk_entries4(path, parent_access,
> &walk_callbacks, &walk_baton, depth,
> SVN_WC_WALK_ENTRIES_WITH_TREE_CONFLICTS,
> cancel_func, cancel_baton, pool);
>
> or
>
> return svn_wc_walk_entries4(path, parent_access,
> &walk_callbacks, &walk_baton, depth,
> SVN_WC_WALK_ENTRIES_WITH_TREE_CONFLICTS
> | SVN_WC_WALK_ENTRIES_WITH_HIDDEN,
> cancel_func, cancel_baton, pool);
>
> Good?
>
> - Julian
...What, this mail is 4 days old?? Sorry for not replying sooner.
This does look good. I wonder if you already committed it...
Apparently not.
+1
~Neels
Received on 2008-11-16 02:29:13 CET