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

Re: svn commit: r1417639 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion/mod_dav_svn: dav_svn.h mod_dav_svn.c reports/update.c

From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:30:53 -0500

On 12/12/2012 03:02 PM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:29 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> Those technical challenges aside, I've since started to doubt the wisdom of
>> adding special treatment of the starting revision to this API anyway. I'll
>> continue pondering other options.
> What about my earlier suggestion?

I considered it.

And ... then I considered it a nasty hack. Seriously, this is really not
the kind of thing that *should* be exposed through an API.

   svn_boolean_t honor_editor_api_promises;

Really? :-)

It does occur to me that one way to work around this is to add an API that
seems generally useful:


This would be Yet Another Flavor Of Update-ish Thing, but wouldn't generate
a reporter/reporter_baton pair, and would immediately begin driving the
provided editor/editor_baton. And ra_serf's implementation thereof would,
of course, use send-all mode.

svnrdump is only trying to do essentally that anyway -- a update of
${NOTHING} to ${SOME_REV}. It calls svn_ra_do_update(), uses the provided
reporter to say "I've got nothing", then finalizes the report and away she
goes. Would it not be more straightforward to offer a compact API for just
those sorts of use-cases -- the "fake update from nothing to something"

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Enterprise Cloud Development

Received on 2012-12-12 21:31:30 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.