-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
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?
- --
Thanks & Regards,
Kannan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEVAwUBSxSqUXlTqcY7ytmIAQLLDgf/V6z5tCCVXj5LzbbzMFWkx9EG28/C2ei3
0gMfvSq/QzS4o9TI2nYmBa1rnlldSq/0eVdRSRWm0giJRmdj/APYoL+CL4wsh9ox
GJryEd5s+P1wxo9oPPpYpmvAqrwGWeKxUymW0zWonSQt1RRsONBil4glRZsy1EqL
NpxPlZ+BtkUAq1L7q5keXnXDqqiR1aFcPPjZH0H+eCc+lgdKkOWOzaUDQBx2Ll+u
tCiUp7i9dmhqvrELGylwFGczM2mA1dam0yd/PpAH+tCsLJDec0ADHkptzKSUGNYl
l72kEVXql+YjJGvRAeiIovqcRP5J65KasQf57vqWPQ6z1nz2bpwANA==
=Y+5/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
