Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 19:48:49 -0800:
> On 12/21/10 5:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 13:47:40 -0800:
>>> On 12/21/10 11:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 20:40:02 +0200:
> Blair Zajac wrote
On 12/21/10 5:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 13:47:40 -0800:
On 12/21/10 11:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 20:40:02 +0200:
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
4) In svn_repos_fs_commit_txn(),
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 13:47:40 -0800:
> On 12/21/10 11:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 20:40:02 +0200:
>>> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
4) In svn_repos_fs_commit_txn(), which order should errors be comp
On 12/21/10 4:03 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 15:55:30 -0800:
On 12/21/10 3:22 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
On 12/21/10 10:55 AM, Blair Zajac wrote:
On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
On 12/20/1
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 15:55:30 -0800:
> On 12/21/10 3:22 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
>> On 12/21/10 10:55 AM, Blair Zajac wrote:
>>> On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
> On 12/20/10 11:32 AM, C. Michael Pilato
On 12/21/10 3:22 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
On 12/21/10 10:55 AM, Blair Zajac wrote:
On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
On 12/20/10 11:32 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 12/20/2010 02:14 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
Shouldn't svn_repos_
On 12/21/10 10:55 AM, Blair Zajac wrote:
On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
On 12/20/10 11:32 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 12/20/2010 02:14 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
Shouldn't svn_repos_fs_commit_txn() always run the post-commi
On 12/21/10 11:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 20:40:02 +0200:
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
4) In svn_repos_fs_commit_txn(), which order should errors be composed?
svn_fs_commit_txn()'s error as the parent followed by the
SVN_
On 12/21/2010 02:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 14:40:01 -0500:
>> Can we fix this? Can we introduce a new error code
>> SVN_ERR_RA_DAV_ERROR_CHAIN which means, "the descriptive message of this
>> error contains a skel which, when parsed, carries a wh
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 14:40:01 -0500:
> On 12/21/2010 02:08 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:55:37 -0800:
> >> On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >>> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
> 4) In s
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 20:40:02 +0200:
> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
> > 4) In svn_repos_fs_commit_txn(), which order should errors be composed?
> > svn_fs_commit_txn()'s error as the parent followed by the
> > SVN_ERR_REPOS_POST_COMMIT_HOOK_FA
On 12/21/2010 02:08 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:55:37 -0800:
>> On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
4) In svn_repos_fs_commit_txn(), which order should errors be composed?
svn_
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:55:37 -0800:
> On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
>>> 4) In svn_repos_fs_commit_txn(), which order should errors be composed?
>>> svn_fs_commit_txn()'s error as the parent followed by t
On 12/21/10 11:08 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:55:37 -0800:
On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
4) In svn_repos_fs_commit_txn(), which order should errors be composed?
svn_fs_commit_txn()'
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:55:37 -0800:
> On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
>>> 4) In svn_repos_fs_commit_txn(), which order should errors be composed?
>>> svn_fs_commit_txn()'s error as the parent followed by t
On 12/21/10 10:40 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
On 12/20/10 11:32 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 12/20/2010 02:14 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
Shouldn't svn_repos_fs_commit_txn() always run the post-commit hook if
new_rev is a valid rev?
That d
Blair Zajac wrote on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:56 -0800:
> On 12/20/10 11:32 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 12/20/2010 02:14 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
>>> Shouldn't svn_repos_fs_commit_txn() always run the post-commit hook if
>>> new_rev is a valid rev?
>>
>> That does seem reasonable, yes.
>
> L
On 12/20/10 11:32 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 12/20/2010 02:14 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
Shouldn't svn_repos_fs_commit_txn() always run the post-commit hook if
new_rev is a valid rev?
That does seem reasonable, yes.
Looking through our code, no existing use of svn_fs_commit_txn() and
svn_r
Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 19:59:37 +:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
> > Blair Zajac wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:14:34 -0800:
> >>
> >> Shouldn't svn_repos_fs_commit_txn() always run the post-commit hook if
> >> new_rev is a valid rev?
> >>
> >
> > That matters when NEW_REV
Blair Zajac wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:03:09 -0800:
>
> On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > Blair Zajac wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:14:34 -0800:
> >> The docs for svn_fs_commit_txn() for read:
> >>
> >> * @note Success or failure of the commit of @a txn is determi
On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Blair Zajac wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:14:34 -0800:
>> The docs for svn_fs_commit_txn() for read:
>>
>> * @note Success or failure of the commit of @a txn is determined by
>> * examining the value of @a *new_rev upon this function's retu
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> Blair Zajac wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:14:34 -0800:
>>
>> Shouldn't svn_repos_fs_commit_txn() always run the post-commit hook if
>> new_rev is a valid rev?
>>
>
> That matters when NEW_REV is a valid rev but there is a non-SVN_NO_ERROR
> return value. When can that
Blair Zajac wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:14:34 -0800:
> The docs for svn_fs_commit_txn() for read:
>
> * @note Success or failure of the commit of @a txn is determined by
> * examining the value of @a *new_rev upon this function's return. If
> * the value is a valid revision number, the com
Blair Zajac writes:
> The docs for svn_fs_commit_txn() for read:
>
> * @note Success or failure of the commit of @a txn is determined by
> * examining the value of @a *new_rev upon this function's return. If
> * the value is a valid revision number, the commit was successful,
> * even though
On 12/20/2010 02:14 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> Shouldn't svn_repos_fs_commit_txn() always run the post-commit hook if
> new_rev is a valid rev?
That does seem reasonable, yes.
> BTW, we should have the docs for svn_fs_commit_txn mention that *new_rev is
> always modified, so the caller doesn't have
25 matches
Mail list logo
