Noorul Islam K M wrote on Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 14:28:49 +0530: > Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> writes: > > Noorul Islam K M wrote on Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:55:55 +0530: > >> Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> writes: > >> > Noorul Islam K M wrote on Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 14:15:48 +0530: > >> >> SVN_ERR(svn_wc__node_get_repos_info(&(info->repos_root_URL), > >> >> - NULL, > >> >> + exclude ? > >> >> + &(info->repos_UUID) : > >> >> NULL, > >> > > >> > Why? > >> > > >> > >> I thought I should not make changes to existing behaviour. I think it is > >> safe to just pass &(info->repos_UUID) in both cases. > >> > > > > ... and? What is the "change to existing behaviour" you're talking about? > > (I > > guess it's printing the repository UUID for excluded nodes?) > > As of now in trunk for this call NULL is passed reference to repository > UUID. I thought I will keep that as such and pass a reference in the > case of excluded. That is why I initially included that condition. Later > I found that it is okay to pass a reference in both cases.
You're just describing in words the syntactic difference between the old and new patches. That doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know, and doesn't answer my question.
