On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 02:28 +0100, Neels J. Hofmeyr wrote:
> 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
No, we're keeping it private for now. Might do something like this
if/when we make it public (for 1.7).
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-17 09:06:29 CET