-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Julian Foad wrote: >> If we're to use info_receiver_relpath_wrapper() and a baton to pass the >> relative path and other info, won't it resemble the implementation(for >> backward compatibility)which is at present? > > Kannan, > > I'm sorry, I don't understand that question. What will resemble what > implementation, in what way?
Currently libsvn_client/deprecated.c holds the .._relpath_wrapper() for the deprecated implementation of `svn_client_info2()' where relative paths are being passed through the baton. So, just had a doubt whether implementing `svn_client_info3()' similar to this using a baton to pass relative path, would resemble the deprecated implementation(or a copy of code). >>> FWIW, centralization and sanitization of relative path output in an >> absolute path world is issue 3464: >>> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3464 >> Thank you Hyrum, in that case implementing using a separate wrapper(now) >> for info alone becomes obsolete right? > > Do you mean "I can change the output format (from relative to absolute) > now, because there is an issue filed for fixing that (changing it back > to relative) later" ? If so, I disagree. Again sorry for the brevity. Meant if I'm to write a wrapper for info alone then won't it become obsolete as other subcommands too require the same feature. Later I got clear from your clarifications that we need a generic function(for all subcommands) to convert the format to relative (if I'm right?). > We COULD apply this patch now, if people think that is the best thing to > do, but I am concerned that if we start making changes like this, we may > not implement the necessary infrastructure to make it easy to "fix" it > later, and also we may start to lose track of what user-visible changes > we have made. If we do it properly straight away, then we will know we > are on track. > > So if you can, please find a way to keep the output format the same, and > you get bonus points if you can create a shared function to help do > that. > Sure, will give it a shot. Thank you for the comments Julian. - -- Thanks & Regards, Kannan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEVAwUBSwqadHlTqcY7ytmIAQLTQggAr3NvHSc5Z5SEJcX9yFTqFfXKQMu6j9bG CWBW9IS2Q4olQSLfF7ar6YSw070SyyAaF59yc1wvV0MXshJMlfXRF3iHbzdcvVrM lbtJfpUzwUQQk/0GF9p3Nsv2Oy3cKOh6rGnye7n6twMkr0uuOBDKCfNqhgbrwApb Lc6KBNy4EYHMC/hzw7XZLiD6FOlIH2mma1KHWX/zKAj2GWXKyIXIcFNZ6YdX1uqm jJ4FCJGeeUF7IgzOyeTHcrq5sgsOboboftmheKQ5JUPpJxX0mtfzxhal6+OjcxeZ Yhdl1/s5nyht+pgAqLr8gEuGMR/v14MB3IvTvG/sC+dqE6aY9Q9Tdg== =1JUD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
