Hi Daniel (Trebbien),
Just thought I would ask for an update, please.
I still have you on my "watch - list" - so there is no rush - just making sure for my own sanity that I haven't missed an email / thread about your patch submission.
Gavin "Beau" Baumanis
On 22/09/2010, at 2:56 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Daniel Trebbien wrote on Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 08:12:38 -0700:
>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>>> Need the word "to" after the semicolon for the English to be correct.
>>
>> Fixed. (When I say "fixed", I mean that I committed a fix in my own
>> fork of Subversion: http://github.com/dtrebbien/subversion )
>>
>
> Fine, but please post patches and log messages to this list as usual.
> It's easier for me/us to process them that way. Thanks.
>
>>>> +svn_error_t *
>>>> +svn_subst_translate_cstring2(const char *src,
>>>> + const char **dst,
>>>> + const char *eol_str,
>>>> + svn_boolean_t repair,
>>>> + apr_hash_t *keywords,
>>>> + svn_boolean_t expand,
>>>> + apr_pool_t *pool)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return translate_cstring2(dst, NULL, src, eol_str, repair, keywords, expand,
>>>> + pool);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> So, this is revved because svn_subst_translate_string2() needs it (and
>>> svn_subst_translate_string() doesn't).
>>
>> I am unsure of what you mean.
>>
>> I took the original implementation of `svn_subst_translate_cstring2`
>> and placed it in the new static utility function `translate_cstring2`.
>> `translate_cstring2` accepts another parameter, and its definition
>> (the old definition on `svn_subst_translate_cstring2`) was
>> appropriately modified to handle this new parameter. This way, I don't
>> have to modify the public API.
>>
>
> Yes, yes. You revved three svn_subst_* functions; one publicly and two
> privately. So I was pointing out (to myself), on each of the latter
> two, where is the call site that needs the additional functionality.
>
>>> I suggest you go ahead (respond to the review, submit an updated patch,
>>> etc) without waiting; the svnsync part will eventually get its share of
>>> reviews. Also, you may want to consider splitting this patch into two
>>> parts (subst work separate from svnsync work).
>>
>> I like the idea of splitting this into two patches.
>
> Okay. Please post an updated patch to this list when you have it ready :-)
>
> Best,
>
> Daniel
>
Received on 2010-09-29 03:08:12 CEST