Hi Daniel (Trebbien), Just thought I would ask for an update, please. I still have you on my "watch - list" - so there is no rush - just making sure for my own sanity that I haven't missed an email / thread about your patch submission.
Gavin "Beau" Baumanis On 22/09/2010, at 2:56 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Daniel Trebbien wrote on Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 08:12:38 -0700: >> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> >> wrote: >>> Need the word "to" after the semicolon for the English to be correct. >> >> Fixed. (When I say "fixed", I mean that I committed a fix in my own >> fork of Subversion: http://github.com/dtrebbien/subversion ) >> > > Fine, but please post patches and log messages to this list as usual. > It's easier for me/us to process them that way. Thanks. > >>>> +svn_error_t * >>>> +svn_subst_translate_cstring2(const char *src, >>>> + const char **dst, >>>> + const char *eol_str, >>>> + svn_boolean_t repair, >>>> + apr_hash_t *keywords, >>>> + svn_boolean_t expand, >>>> + apr_pool_t *pool) >>>> +{ >>>> + return translate_cstring2(dst, NULL, src, eol_str, repair, keywords, >>>> expand, >>>> + pool); >>>> +} >>> >>> So, this is revved because svn_subst_translate_string2() needs it (and >>> svn_subst_translate_string() doesn't). >> >> I am unsure of what you mean. >> >> I took the original implementation of `svn_subst_translate_cstring2` >> and placed it in the new static utility function `translate_cstring2`. >> `translate_cstring2` accepts another parameter, and its definition >> (the old definition on `svn_subst_translate_cstring2`) was >> appropriately modified to handle this new parameter. This way, I don't >> have to modify the public API. >> > > Yes, yes. You revved three svn_subst_* functions; one publicly and two > privately. So I was pointing out (to myself), on each of the latter > two, where is the call site that needs the additional functionality. > >>> I suggest you go ahead (respond to the review, submit an updated patch, >>> etc) without waiting; the svnsync part will eventually get its share of >>> reviews. Also, you may want to consider splitting this patch into two >>> parts (subst work separate from svnsync work). >> >> I like the idea of splitting this into two patches. > > Okay. Please post an updated patch to this list when you have it ready :-) > > Best, > > Daniel >
