On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Ben Reser <b...@reser.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Shivani Poddar > <shivani.podda...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe writing "adding tests for svn_checksum_dup() function in > > svn_checksum.h would be the correct thing to do. > > Yes. I'd probably say something like "swig-py: Adding tests for > svn_checksum_dup()" > > > Since in the earlier patches we had LENGTH as a global variable, I did > not > > feel the need to change it here. > > But that's not what is in our repository right now. So your patch > makes that change. > > > Yes, this is merely the same. I did not rewrite it this time around. I am > > not sure why would these lines come with a (+) in the patch. > > You probably still had them in your local working copy. When > submitting a patch you'll want to review the diff and make sure you're > only including the changes you intended in the patch. Even > > > Using modulus here was to tackle the different types of > svn_checksum_kind_t > > we have. This was deliberated at earlier when danielsh reviewed that > patch. > > Right and it was rejected. Which is why what's in our repository is > not the same as what you had submitted. >
I see. I did run an 'svn update' on my working copy before making any new changed this time around. Maybe i'll recheck the diff yes. -- Shivani Poddar, Bachelors in Computer Sciences and MS in Exact Humanities, Sophomore International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad
