C. Michael Pilato wrote: > Stefan Sperling wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 09:01:28PM +0100, Daniel Näslund wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> When trying to replace entries in the status code I got a couple of test >>> failures saying that the revision should be 0 for newly added nodes. >>> Greg pointed out that the entries code set the revision to 0 for those >>> cases while the revision returned from _read_info() sets it to -1. >>> >>> Should we continue to use the 0 value? Is it well established as the >>> revision number of version controlled, not yet committed files or should >>> we tell 'svn info' and 'svn status' to not output any rev nr at all for >>> these nodes? >> I think -1 (invalid revnum) is more appropriate than 0.
Nice, I hit that same question like two weeks ago, with
svn_client__get_revision_number() upon svn_opt_revision_base for added
nodes. I found the same conclusion: it should have always returned -1.
I am at the point where I would trial to see how callers deal with a -1
revision number ("would" because I need to study for an exam next week, bah).
Ideally, we will change the behaviour of this private function when
switching it to wc-ng. I hope we don't have to mock up current behaviour for
compat, especially because that depends on parent nodes sometimes.
~Neels
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
