On 6/15/2016 10:26 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:13:08AM +0200, Stefan wrote:
>> This sounds utterly familiar to me:
>>
>> See this mail on the dev list: "[PATCH] error handling for
>> build_text_conflict_resolve_items" from 02/01/16:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201602.mbox/%3C56AEA607.7030209%40posteo.de%3E
>>
>> The position you add the check seems to differ slightly (I added the
>> mine_abspath check above the line which determines the conflict style,
>> but I'd be +1 (non-binding) with any of the two patches.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stefan
> Ah, I had missed that. Thanks!
>
> Too bad this fell through the cracks back in February. Please try to
> ping your own patches if you don't get a reply. We have a patch manager
> role in the community who regularly pings every patch posted, but our
> last patch manager has gone AWOL.
> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/roles.html#patch-manager
I kept it on my backlog, but since I got no replies, I thought best to
get a repro case demonstrating the issue and verifying the proposed fix
really solves the issue (so it's verifiable).
Unfortunately, I simply didn't get to that yet. So glad, you picked it
up. :-)
> One problem with your version of this fix is that it creates a case
> where we run code before a variable declaration in the same block.
> We can't do that because we remain compatible with old compilers.
Oh right. Completely overlooked that C89 violation in my patch. Nice spot.
--
Regards,
Stefan Hett, Developer/Administrator
EGOSOFT GmbH, Heidestrasse 4, 52146 Würselen, Germany
Tel: +49 2405 4239970, www.egosoft.com
Geschäftsführer: Bernd Lehahn, Handelsregister Aachen HRB 13473
Received on 2016-06-15 11:10:12 CEST