Re: [PATCH] fs patch was vtable-fi-cation of the fs

On Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 04:18 PM, Glenn A. Thompson wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I just realized that this is a patch, and as such it should have
> [PATCH] in the subject:-)
> http://www.cdrguys.com/subversion/index.html

i have almost no experience with the fs code, but i'm glancing over the
diff, and a few things occured to me...

basename_db_access_funcs_t

        what's with the name? first off, it should be namespace protected, so
svn_ something, and i don't see the reason to lump 'baseline' at the
front of it. i'd probably call it 'svn_fs_db_access_funcs_t' or
something.

comments

        no need for the 'This gets included instead of bdb/xxx.h files'
comments. that can go in the log or something, but there's no reason
to enshrine it in the source forever...

-garrett

-- 
garrett rooney                    Remember, any design flaw you're
rooneg@electricjellyfish.net      sufficiently snide about becomes
http://electricjellyfish.net/     a feature.       -- Dan Sugalski
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org