DanielShahaf wrote:

> [ Caveat: I'm not at all familiar with merge.c ]

Thanks for casting your eyes over it anyway.

> Julian Foad wrote on Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 19:35:04 +0000:
>>    The svn client reintegrate merge code calls:
>> 
>>      svn_client_find_reintegrate_merge(&url1, &rev1, &url2, 
> &rev2,
>>  ...);     svn_client_merge4(url1, rev1, url2, rev2, ...);
> ...

> Looks good.

Thanks.

Look at the following patch hunk, and ideally look also at the earlier hunk 
where we see these changes are inside the function that was called 
'reintegrate_merge_locked' but is now a cut-down function called 
'find_reintegrate_merge'.  So ...

>>  @@ -10628,31 +10631,76 @@ merge_reintegrate_locked(const char *sou
>>   
>>     /* Left side: 
>> trunk@youngest-trunk-rev-merged-to-branch-at-specified-peg-rev
>>      * Right side: branch@specified-peg-revision */
>>  +  *source_p = apr_pmemdup(result_pool, &source, sizeof(source));
>>  +  return SVN_NO_ERROR;
>>  +}
>>   
>>  -  /* Do the real merge! */
>>  -  /* ### TODO(reint): Make sure that one isn't the same line ancestor
>>  -     ### of the other (what's erroneously referred to as "ancestrally
>>  -     ### related" in this source file).  We can merge to trunk without
>>  -     ### implementing this. */
>>  -  err = merge_cousins_and_supplement_mergeinfo(target_abspath,
>>  -                                         target_ra_session,
>>  -                                         source_ra_session,
>>  -                                         &source, yc_ancestor_rev,
>>  -                                         TRUE /* same_repos */,
>>  -                                         svn_depth_infinity,
>>  -                                         FALSE /* ignore_ancestry */,
>>  -                                         FALSE /* force */,
>>  -                                         FALSE /* record_only */,
>>  -                                         dry_run,
> 
> Could you clarify why this is removed?  I don't see it added elsewhere
> in the patch.  Is it a functional change?  Or do the diff hunks form an
> optical illusion here?

Instead of performing the merge, the (renamed) function now only finds the URLs 
and returns them.  Then, later on (in merge_reintegrate_locked), instead of 
calling this 'merge_cousins' function directly, we instead call 'merge_locked' 
(which is the guts of svn_client_merge4()) which calls 'merge_cousins'.

> 
>>  +merge_reintegrate_locked(const char *source_path_or_url,
>>  +                         const svn_opt_revision_t *source_peg_revision,
>>  +                         const char *target_abspath,
>>  +                         svn_boolean_t dry_run,
>>  +                         const apr_array_header_t *merge_options,
>>  +                         svn_client_ctx_t *ctx,
>>  +                         apr_pool_t *scratch_pool)
>>  +{
>>  +  if (source->url1)
>>  +    {
>>  +      svn_opt_revision_t revision1
>>  +        = { svn_opt_revision_number, { source->rev1 } };
>>  +      svn_opt_revision_t revision2
>>  +        = { svn_opt_revision_number, { source->rev2 } };
> 
> ISTR we had trouble in the past with some compilers not allowing these
> non-constant initializers.  (Fix would be to unroll the initialization
> into separate lines of code.)

AFAIK we've had this kind of initialization in the Subversion source for a long 
time now, so I'm treating it as de-facto acceptable even though not C'89.  I've 
been writing quite a few of these recently.  I can change them all to the 
long-winded alternative if proven necessary, but I hope it's not necessary 
because I really like the brevity.

- Julian

Reply via email to