FWIW, my concerns here are:
* svn_client_relocate{,2} have the same signature. This might be
confusing sometimes. (but probably should be left alone)
* svn_client_relocate2() takes an IGNORE_EXTERNALS parameter. Should
we pass TRUE always to that parameter, or should we pass the
identically-named parameter of the calling function? (the calling
function *happens* to have an appropriately-named parameter, but
I haven't checked its semantics)
Daniel
Julian Foad wrote on Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 15:09:32 +0000:
> On Wed, 2010-12-08, Philip Martin wrote:
> > Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 14:26 +0000, Julian Foad wrote:
> > >> Prabhu Gnana Sundar wrote:
> > >> > I have attached a patch with a minor change which fixes a compiler
> > >> > warning.
> > >>
> > >> Hi Prabhu. How do you know that svn_client_relocate2() is a drop-in
> > >> replacement for svn_client_relocate() in this case? What is difference
> > >> between svn_client_relocate() and svn_client_relocate2()? Does it
> > >> matter? Can you think of any way of testing or verifying it?
> > >
> > > Did you run the test suite? Does the test suite exercise this code
> > > path?
> >
> > That's the http redirect code, tested by redirect_tests.py. The patch
> > is correct.
>
> Great. Thanks, Philip. I over-reacted and made a mistake. I
> immediately looked at the doc string of svn_client_relocate() and saw
> the words "dir is required to be a working copy root", and mis-read it
> as specifying a restriction of relocate2() compared to relocate(). As I
> did not know whether Prabhu had verified or tested anything, that
> misunderstanding made me suspect that the patch was broken.
>
> Prabhu: I'm sorry I responded with a barrage of questions. It appears
> your patch is fine.
>
> In the future, if you could say just a few words about what
> investigation and/or testing you have done, each time you submit a
> patch, that would help me to know what level of confidence I should have
> when I start looking at it. Thanks in advance.
>
> And in the future I'll try not to be so hasty in my responses.
>
> - Julian
>
>
