On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Note that the caller can request a blame where the "end" revision is the
>> > "WORKING" pseudo-revision, so be careful not to confuse the reader when
>> > documenting this new "end revision number" parameter which is a revision
>> > number as determined from the repository and which will not include the
>> > "WORKING" pseudo-revision. (Maybe we should also pass a parameter that
>> > provides this information: "svn_boolean_t
>> > range_includes_working_version"?)
[...]
> On the other hand, this is information that the client already knows and
> can pass via the "baton", so it doesn't need to be passed through a
> separate argument to this callback.
Ah, yes indeed. In fact it's already passed via the baton (at least in
blame-cmd's case). Inside svn_cl__blame, the blame_baton_t gets a
reference to the opt_state. And then there is the following piece of
code, right before svn_client_blame5 is called:
[[[
if (end_revision_unspecified)
{
if (peg_revision.kind != svn_opt_revision_unspecified)
opt_state->end_revision = peg_revision;
else if (svn_path_is_url(target))
opt_state->end_revision.kind = svn_opt_revision_head;
else
opt_state->end_revision.kind = svn_opt_revision_working;
}
]]]
So I guess that should be ok.
Cheers,
--
Johan
