Noorul Islam K M <noo...@collab.net> writes: > 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. >
Just pinging again so that this one is not lost. Thanks and Regards Noorul
