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

Re: [Subclipse-dev] Enhancement needed in svn status -u

From: Paul Burba <PaulB_at_softlanding.com>
Date: 2005-08-11 16:37:27 CEST

"Peter N. Lundblad" <peter@famlundblad.se> wrote on 08/11/2005 02:20:09
AM:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Mark Phippard wrote:
>
> > My initial thought/hope was that the client API had the info that was
> > needed and JavaHL just needed to be revved to pass it back. I thought
> > that svn st -u -v was showing the revision of the item in the
repository.
> > Sussman pointed out to me on IRC that this is not the case. We are
> > currently working on a design proposal for revving the client API to
> > include information about the repository item in the information it
> > returns. We are just trying to wrap our heads around it right now.
> >
> I don't think you need to rev the client API. You can add fields to the
> end of svn_wc_status2_t (that's even documented!).
>
> This chage seems pretty straight forward to me. Just add the fields you
> need, and catch the entryprops in change_file_prop and change_dir_prop
in
> libsvn_wc/status.c. The URL field is a little tricky because of
switched
> entries. For entries that exist in the WC, it is readily available. For
> added paths, there must be a nearest ancestor in the WC with an URL that
> you can extend.

In looking at this, I came to more or less the same conclusion, though
undoubtedly it took me a *bit* longer to figure it out.

I'm still unsure about the need to rev svn_wc_status2_t or not. Looking
at r13791 (Rev the svn_wc_status_t structure to svn_wc_status2_t, so as
not to break ABI) as a roadmap for adding to svn_wc_status_t, the
implication is that I need to rev svn_wc_status2_t, svn_wc_dup_status2,
svn_wc_status2, etc...but r13805 added the comment you alluded to above:

 * @note Fields may be added to the end of this structure in future
 * versions. Therefore, users shouldn't allocate structures of this
 * type, to preserve binary compatibility.

Does this warning alone give the green light to add members to
svn_wc_status2_t without revving it? The following thread on ABI breakage
reveals no widespread consensus on this topic:

  http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2005-03/0929.shtml

I might be missing something terribly simple as this is my first time
tackling a change of this nature and my understanding of maintaining ABI
is a bit shaky; so any guidance is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Paul B.
 
> Hope this gives some hints,
> //Peter - who recently messed with status -u for locking...

_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Received on Fri Aug 12 00:37:27 2005

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