On 7/23/2007 8:49 PM, Luke Call wrote: >> OK but comments shouldn't be in docstring format. In python you use "#" >> for commands, and strings for docstrings. The two have different >> meanings and usages, even though they have the same net effect on the >> code (they are ignored). > > That makes word wrap a nuisance, but I've changed it.
That pretty much depends on the editor you're using. Komodo, for instance, offers a word-wrapping facility which correctly respects comments. >> Luke, many thanks for your "passion" into this bug. I think we're almost >> there. I think next steps are: > > My goal is to simplify usage for our developers, and I think it will > help others also. There are now two common (for us) scenarios (where > either branch is a copy of the other) where the default behavior > (without a revision list parameter) works as expected instead of > requiring them to review logs and calculate rev numbers. Also to make > it easier for me to integrate future changes into our diverged > svnmerge.py, if at least part of the divergence will have been committed > upstream. If others benefit, that is a most happy thought as well. > >> 1) Patch #1 can be committed (Dustin, can you can take care of that?) > Thanks!!! (And to Dustin for checking it in.) > >> 2) Patch #2 should be revised as I suggested, by just returning None on >> optional attributes when they're not available. > > Done; uploaded here: > http://subversion.tigris.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/675/addNullreturnsToPulldomUsage.patch > OK, approved. FYI, a shortest way (which doesn't introduce a new function) is to repeat this simple pattern: def action(self): return getAttributeOrNone(self._node, "action") or None >> 3) A separate patch for renaming branch->target (and doing only that) is >> pre-approved and can be committed as soon as it is submitted. > > done; available here: > http://subversion.tigris.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/676/renameParametersToActionInit.patch > OK, approved. >> 4) Patch #3 needs only minor nits (as reviewed here). I want to >> re-review it when it's finished, but I don't foresee any specific >> problem. Also please submit this one in context diff format (if >> possible) as the unified format isn't clear in this case. > > Done; now available here (context format): > http://subversion.tigris.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/677/furtherInitLogicFixesAsBegunByr22788-take3-unifiedFormat.patch > > > > ..and here (unified format): > http://subversion.tigris.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/678/furtherInitLogicFixesAsBegunByr22788-take3-contextFormat.patch > OK, approved, with one minor correction: the comments in action_init() still speaks of "branch" and "trunk". You should updated them to speak about "source" and "target", otherwise they don't match anymore with the code. Thanks again for working on this! -- Giovanni Bajo _______________________________________________ Svnmerge mailing list [email protected] http://www.orcaware.com/mailman/listinfo/svnmerge
