-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Kannan wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 09:30:58PM +0530, Kannan wrote:
>>> Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>>>> @@ -773,7 +777,7 @@
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that we're not sending the locks in the If: header, for
>>>>> the same reason we're not sending in MERGE's headers: httpd has
>>>>> - limits on the amount of data it's willing to receive in headers.
>>>>> */
>>>>> + limits on the amount of data it's willing to receive in
>>>>> headers. */
>>>> Why was this changed?
>>> Indentation fix in the comment.
>> It's better to make unrelated changes in separate patches.
>
> Ok, I'll make it under a separate one.
>
>> I found one more nit:
>
>>> Index: subversion/libsvn_ra_neon/props.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- subversion/libsvn_ra_neon/props.c (revision 885339)
>>> +++ subversion/libsvn_ra_neon/props.c (working copy)
>>> @@ -991,7 +991,10 @@
>>>
>>> /* maybe return bc_url to the caller */
>>> if (bc_url)
>>> - *bc_url = *my_bc_url;
>>> + {
>>> + bc_url->data = svn_uri_canonicalize(my_bc_url->data, pool);
>>> + bc_url->len = my_bc_url->len;
>>> + }
>> It would be nicer to have svn_ra_neon__get_baseline_props()
>> do the canonicalisation, at this spot:
>
>> /* don't forget to tack on the parts we lopped off in order to find
>> the VCC... We are expected to return a URI decoded relative
>> path, so decode the lopped path first. */
>> my_bc_relative = svn_path_join(relative_path->data,
>> svn_path_uri_decode(lopped_path, pool),
>> pool);
>
>> Then the caller would not need to worry about canonicalisation
>> and your above change would not be needed.
>
>> Also we could replace the svn_path_join() while there.
>
>
> The above code initialises `my_bc_rel' right? And `my_bc_url' is
> getting initialised in `svn_ra_neon__get_baseline_info()' here :
>
> <snip>
> /* Allocate our own copy of bc_url regardless. */
> my_bc_url = apr_hash_get(baseline_rsrc->propset,
> SVN_RA_NEON__PROP_BASELINE_COLLECTION,
> APR_HASH_KEY_STRING);
> </snip>
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you for your feedback. If the
> above case seems ok, then shall I send the updated patch?
Any updates on this thread?
- --
Thanks & Regards,
Kannan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEVAwUBSxyavHlTqcY7ytmIAQKyCwf7BC1yOZhDoWcTi1b086+hWCcl12761xSX
bM1tVKIFkU+4L8vNmVw4iXSehIzKaHF5X1XmlJ7O5tKIrig9xB52RkWxJh0R52G3
EsHOJcpK/NyMlAseIht+OEu1iLPice02pgZrFMXKAtE46pbsOmZDjS44RHoVQKX7
AgPch86RhP3/MmDcr/bhT+gWAV3OhQZczakCDhkL5vrGOMyVwTGPcGjELKoTmJRc
UbLtLAGp72fp8BZf7VpmjkYOVwy8F5SSeTiDJHmQYkTiTTrVK254tmFcgvXnTMyc
9aAtv0m6F2KKcCAAiWo7hGPtJlvSU9qhtnjisFGSB/5jgigUSxTXrg==
=xV3e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
