Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> writes:
> 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.
I meant existing behaviour of "tree_conflict" not "excluded." And this
patch does not change that even if I pass a reference instead of
NULL. Also with this patch it prints repository UUID for excluded nodes.
I hope this answers your question.
Thanks and Regards
Noorul
Received on 2011-02-09 10:42:09 CET