C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:04:04 -0500:
> On 12/18/2010 04:29 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > cmpilato_at_apache.org wrote on Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 23:10:10 -0000:
> >> * subversion/libsvn_ra/util.c
> >> (is_atomicity_error): Moved here from svnsync/main.c.
> >> (svn_ra__release_operational_lock): New, abstracted from
> >> svnsync/main.c:maybe_unlock().
> >> (svn_ra__get_operational_lock): New, abstracted from
> >> svnsync/main.c:get_lock().
> > Not exactly the same as svnsync's versions, since you added the
> > 'stolen_lock_p' parameter. (and the log message doesn't mention that)
> I'm not claiming they are the same. I'm claiming that essentially logic
> therein was culled from the svnsync functions. I note that they are "New",
> and it's not our practice to list the parameters of new functions. :-)
> If it was a simple function move, I would use the syntax as above with
> is_atomicity_error -- "Move here from..." or "Was ...".
When I read the log message, I assumed it was a function move+rename.
I didn't know we had just two hard-coded syntaxes whitelisted for use in
the event of moving a function :-)
Received on 2010-12-20 18:06:06 CET