On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 14:16, Lieven Govaerts <lgo_at_mobsol.be> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> Geez... making a duplicate to satisfy a const warning? That is *not*
>> the right approach.
>>
>> Instead, you can easily see that the handler is not attempting to
>> modify the header at all. It should have been declared as a const
>> parameter. *That* is the proper change.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> I sent lgo a review of the auth work yesterday, but he may have missed
>> it. That included adding a lot of const qualifiers.
>>
>> I'll take care of it. This kind of change is just silly.
>>
>> -g
>
> I didn't miss it Greg, just didn't have the time yet to work on your
> suggestions. I'll do it this weekend, no need to do it yourself.
Gotcha.
Well... no matter. I've dug into the code and made lots of changes.
const in many places, adding svn_ra_serf__ prefixes, fixing up the
sspi code, revamping some of the parsing code, etc.
If you could do some testing this weekend on my changes, that would be
great. I don't have a good environment for that.
Cheers,
-g
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1277477
Received on 2009-03-06 15:07:00 CET