On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 16:51, Neels J Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>> and recall that BASE == what you checked out from the repository.
>> WORKING corresponds to added/removed/copied/moved nodes. For nodes in
> Yes, I learnt this from Bert last week, and also that the current *@BASE*
> commandline keyword refers to the "copy_from" of the *WORKING* tree for all
> the add-with-history schedules :)
I don't think it is advisable to try to make any correlation between
the cmdline markers and the names that we use internally for the
>> the WORKING tree, revision will always be SVN_INVALID_REVNUM, and the
>> repos_relpath/root_url will be NULL.
> Hadn't seen it that clear yet.
> But read_info fills up the revision, repos_relpath and root_url from the
> BASE tree even when a node is present in the WORKING tree, right?
> (read_info's comment sounds like it:
> " * The information returned comes from the BASE tree, as possibly modified
> * by the WORKING and ACTUAL trees. ")
Sounds like the comment could/should be improved.
> So when read_info returns a non-"empty" revision, repos_relpath or root_url,
> then these values have definitely come from the BASE tree?
> Does that mean the two calls that only ask status, revision, repos_relpath
> and root_url, passing NULL for all other return-parameters, are in fact
> perfectly identical?
No. If you have both a BASE node and a WORKING node, then
base_get_info will return data about the BASE node, and read_info will
return NULL values.
If there is no WORKING node, then yes: the two will be equivalent for
those param values.
Received on 2010-01-28 03:24:42 CET