Re: API review - svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2()

2011-07-19 Thread Julian Foad
Paul Burba wrote: > > That (and your r1145653 edit) still looks the wrong way around. > > Because, unless I'm misreading the double-negatives, this function > > supposedly returns a set of mergeinfo that refers to *non-existent* > > path-revs. > > Hi Julian, > > Ugh, you're correct, I had it comp

Re: API review - svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2()

2011-07-19 Thread Paul Burba
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > Hi Paul.  Thanks for the comprehensive reply and sorry for the wait. > Responses in line. > > On Tue, 2011-07-12, Paul Burba wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Julian Foad wrote: >> > Hi Paul.  That looks good.  I have some queries and

Re: API review - svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2()

2011-07-15 Thread Julian Foad
Hi Paul. Thanks for the comprehensive reply and sorry for the wait. Responses in line. On Tue, 2011-07-12, Paul Burba wrote: > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > > Hi Paul. That looks good. I have some queries and suggestions about > > the details, not all related specificall

Re: API review - svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2()

2011-07-12 Thread Paul Burba
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > On Fri, 2011-07-01, Paul Burba wrote: >> Paul Burba wrote: >> > Julian Foad wrote: >> >> I will just ask once more: as a matter of principle, are we comfortable >> >> it's OK to provide only an indication that "the server did in fact do >> >> th

Re: API review - svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2()

2011-07-08 Thread Julian Foad
On Fri, 2011-07-01, Paul Burba wrote: > Paul Burba wrote: > > Julian Foad wrote: > >> I will just ask once more: as a matter of principle, are we comfortable > >> it's OK to provide only an indication that "the server did in fact do > >> this for you this time", but not to have a way of finding out

Re: API review - svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2()

2011-07-01 Thread Paul Burba
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Paul Burba wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Julian Foad wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-06-28, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >>> On 06/28/2011 01:37 PM, Paul Burba wrote: >>> > Hi Julian, >>> > >>> > I hadn't realized using in-out parameters was considered such bad >>

Re: API review - svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2()

2011-06-29 Thread Paul Burba
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > On Tue, 2011-06-28, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> On 06/28/2011 01:37 PM, Paul Burba wrote: >> > Hi Julian, >> > >> > I hadn't realized using in-out parameters was considered such bad >> > form. >> >> At a minimum, they force an API divergence in

Re: API review - svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2()

2011-06-29 Thread Julian Foad
On Tue, 2011-06-28, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 06/28/2011 01:37 PM, Paul Burba wrote: > > Hi Julian, > > > > I hadn't realized using in-out parameters was considered such bad > > form. > > At a minimum, they force an API divergence in our bindings layers. +1 to > separate and explicit in and

Re: API review - svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2()

2011-06-28 Thread C. Michael Pilato
On 06/28/2011 01:37 PM, Paul Burba wrote: > Hi Julian, > > I hadn't realized using in-out parameters was considered such bad > form. At a minimum, they force an API divergence in our bindings layers. +1 to separate and explicit in and out parameters. -- C. Michael Pilato CollabNet <> www.

Re: API review - svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2()

2011-06-28 Thread Paul Burba
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > I'm curious about the new 'validate_inherited_mergeinfo' parameter of > svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2(), which is the public API that calls > svn_ra__vtable_t.get_mergeinfo(). > > /* ... >  * If the mergeinfo for any path is inherited and >  * @a *val

API review - svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2()

2011-06-28 Thread Julian Foad
I'm curious about the new 'validate_inherited_mergeinfo' parameter of svn_ra_get_mergeinfo2(), which is the public API that calls svn_ra__vtable_t.get_mergeinfo(). /* ... * If the mergeinfo for any path is inherited and * @a *validate_inherited_mergeinfo is TRUE, then request that the server *