[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r1412418 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/private/svn_string_private.h libsvn_subr/string.c

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:18:32 -0500

On Nov 22, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:

> On 22.11.2012 15:19, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:brane_at_wandisco.com]
>>> Sent: donderdag 22 november 2012 11:04
>>> To: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1412418 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion:
>>> include/private/svn_string_private.h libsvn_subr/string.c
>>>
>>> On 22.11.2012 10:30, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: brane_at_apache.org [mailto:brane_at_apache.org]
>>>>> Sent: donderdag 22 november 2012 06:21
>>>>> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: svn commit: r1412418 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion:
>>>>> include/private/svn_string_private.h libsvn_subr/string.c
>>>>>
>>>>> Author: brane
>>>>> Date: Thu Nov 22 05:20:51 2012
>>>>> New Revision: 1412418
>>>>>
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1412418&view=rev
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> Groundwork for issue #4261. Invent memory buffers.
>>>> Issue #4261 is called "Setting unknown svn: propnames should require
>>> 'force'", so I think you want to reference a different issue number here.
>>>
>>> Nope, this is exactly what I'm laying the groundwork for. As will become
>>> obvious in the next couple days.
>> Thanks Daniel:
>> 15:04 <@danielsh> Bert: the last comment on #4261
>> 15:04 <@danielsh> where brane says he's getting carried away and implementing a spellchecker
>> 15:05 <@Bert> "the spelling in the error message"?
>> 15:05 <@danielsh> "Unknown propname 'svn:ingore'; did you mean 'svn:ignore'?"
>> 15:17 <@Bert> The problem would only be that we don't show an error on typos in the 'svn:' part.
>
> How did you come to the conclusion that we don't, I mean won't? :)
>
>> 15:17 <@Bert> But thanks for explaining. Now it finally makes sense.
>
> I'll try to remember to explain things a bit more proactively and
> prophetically

Just a thought. We do not have many svn: props. Couldn't we just list all of them? If we knew they were setting on a folder or file we could further limit it to that subset. Seems a lot easier and just as useful, perhaps even more useful.

Mark
Received on 2012-11-22 18:19:10 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.