You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Bill Tutt <bi...@microsoft.com> on 2001/01/08 23:58:05 UTC

RE: CVS update: subversion/subversion/include svn_client.h svn_wc .h


> From: 	Karl Fogel [mailto:kfogel@galois.collab.net] 

> Bill Tutt <bi...@microsoft.com> writes:
> > Err. The status hash includes their names too...  It's the hash key. So
I
> > guess I'm still not sure what Greg was wondering.

> The point is that, if you call svn_wc_statuses() on directory D with
> descend==0, then subdirs of D won't even show up in the return hash

Err:
          if (descend
              && (kind == svn_node_dir)
              && (strcmp (basename, SVN_WC_ENTRY_THIS_DIR) != 0))
            svn_wc_statuses (statushash, fullpath, descend, pool);
          else
            {
              err = add_status_structure (statushash, fullpath, entry,
pool);
              if (err) return err;              
            }


It sure looks like subdirs of D will show up in the return hash to me.... 
i.e. if (!descend) then add status to hash

> because we can't say anything useful about their status.  We're not
> descending into them, after all.

> (Getting statuses is different from getting entries.)

Well, yeah, I can understand the rational behind not adding the subdirs to
the hash, but atm you are.

Bill

Re: CVS update: subversion/subversion/include svn_client.h svn_wc .h

Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@galois.collab.net>.
Bill Tutt <bi...@microsoft.com> writes:
>           if (descend
>               && (kind == svn_node_dir)
>               && (strcmp (basename, SVN_WC_ENTRY_THIS_DIR) != 0))
>             svn_wc_statuses (statushash, fullpath, descend, pool);
>           else
>             {
>               err = add_status_structure (statushash, fullpath, entry,
> pool);
>               if (err) return err;              
>             }
> 
> 
> It sure looks like subdirs of D will show up in the return hash to me.... 
> i.e. if (!descend) then add status to hash

Oh yah, bug.  Thanks. :-)

> Well, yeah, I can understand the rational behind not adding the subdirs to
> the hash, but atm you are.

Not for long. :-)

-K