Noorul Islam K M <noo...@collab.net> writes: > 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. >
Pinging again so that this gets some attention. Thanks and Regards Noorul
