On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 03:21, <dannas_at_apache.org> wrote:
>...
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/revision_status.c Fri Mar 12 08:21:45 2010
>...
> {
> - struct status_baton *sb = baton;
> + struct walk_baton *wb = baton;
> + svn_revnum_t changed_rev;
> + svn_revnum_t revision;
> + svn_depth_t depth;
> + svn_wc__db_status_t status;
> + svn_boolean_t wc_root;
> + svn_boolean_t switched;
wc_root and switched can be moved into a tighter scope.
>...
> - if (status->entry->depth != svn_depth_exclude)
> + /* Added files have a revision of no interest */
> + if (revision != SVN_INVALID_REVNUM)
> {
> - sb->result->switched |= status->switched;
> - sb->result->modified |= (status->text_status != svn_wc_status_normal);
> - sb->result->modified |= (status->prop_status != svn_wc_status_normal
> - && status->prop_status != svn_wc_status_none);
> + svn_revnum_t item_rev = (wb->committed
> + ? changed_rev
> + : revision);
I think this may introduce a bug. Depending on wb->committed, we look
at different revision values. And it may be that REVISION is valid,
but CHANGED_REV is not. I would suggest moving the assignment of
ITEM_REV one block out, and using that in the primary if() test.
>...
> + wb->result->sparse_checkout |= ((depth != svn_depth_infinity
> + && depth != svn_depth_unknown));
No need for *double* parentheses here :-P
>...
Cheers,
-g
Received on 2010-03-12 11:43:53 CET