Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> writes: > 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.
I meant existing behaviour of "tree_conflict" not "excluded." And this patch does not change that even if I pass a reference instead of NULL. Also with this patch it prints repository UUID for excluded nodes. I hope this answers your question. Thanks and Regards Noorul
