On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 02:54, <julianfoad_at_apache.org> wrote:
> Author: julianfoad
> Date: Thu Mar 11 07:54:16 2010
> New Revision: 921713
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=921713&view=rev
> Simplify two mergeinfo functions.
> * subversion/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo.c
> (svn_mergeinfo_inheritable): Replace the body with a call to
This function, along with svn_rangelist_inheritable should be marked
as SVN_DEPRECATED in the header file. We may have caught this
duplicative logic earlier.
Further, these deprecated functions should move to libsvn_subr/deprecated.c
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo.c Thu Mar 11 07:54:16 2010
> @@ -1988,13 +1963,9 @@ svn_mergeinfo__filter_mergeinfo_by_range
> apr_array_header_t *new_rangelist;
> - if (include_range)
> - SVN_ERR(svn_rangelist_intersect(&new_rangelist, rangelist,
> - filter_rangelist, FALSE,
> - result_pool));
> - else
> - SVN_ERR(svn_rangelist_remove(&new_rangelist, filter_rangelist,
> - rangelist, FALSE, result_pool));
> + SVN_ERR(rangelist_intersect_or_remove(
> + &new_rangelist, filter_rangelist, rangelist,
> + ! include_range, FALSE, result_pool));
The intersect call had (rangelist, filter_rangelist), but the remove
is opposite that. Yet the internal function passes along the one,
consistent ordering. Are you sure that is not a problem?
IOW, they all end up at rangelist_intersect_or_remove(), but you have
changed the order for the include_range==TRUE (intersect) case.
Received on 2010-03-11 09:18:57 CET