Noorul Islam K M wrote on Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 14:28:49 +0530:
> Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> writes:
> > Noorul Islam K M wrote on Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:55:55 +0530:
> >> Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> writes:
> >> > Noorul Islam K M wrote on Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 14:15:48 +0530:
> >> >> SVN_ERR(svn_wc__node_get_repos_info(&(info->repos_root_URL),
> >> >> - NULL,
> >> >> + exclude ?
> >> >> + &(info->repos_UUID) : NULL,
> >> >
> >> > Why?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I thought I should not make changes to existing behaviour. I think it is
> >> safe to just pass &(info->repos_UUID) in both cases.
> >>
> >
> > ... and? What is the "change to existing behaviour" you're talking about? (I
> > guess it's printing the repository UUID for excluded nodes?)
>
> As of now in trunk for this call NULL is passed reference to repository
> UUID. I thought I will keep that as such and pass a reference in the
> case of excluded. That is why I initially included that condition. Later
> I found that it is okay to pass a reference in both cases.
You're just describing in words the syntactic difference between the old
and new patches. That doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know,
and doesn't answer my question.
Received on 2011-02-09 10:33:46 CET