[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r21540 - in trunk/subversion: libsvn_fs_fs tests/cmdline tests/libsvn_fs

From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev_at_farside.org.uk>
Date: 2006-09-19 16:43:13 CEST

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:34:59AM -0400, David Glasser wrote:
> On 9/19/06, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> wrote:
> >Just wondering, but is there any reason that you made this an argument
> >instead of setting the is_fresh_txn_root value at the callsites? It's a
> >little... odd to see us changing the noderev as part of writing it out.
> Heh, I probably should have justified that.
> My feeling was, it would be a problem to forget to clear the flag at
> one of the svn_fs_fs__put_node_revision callsites. Forcing it to be an
> argument to the function meant there was no way somebody (myself
> during this patch or somebody else later) could forget to do so.

Oh, okay. But the same applies to all the other contents of the noderev
structure :-), doesn't it? I know I'm probably just being picky -
I'll make the change myself if you've no objections.

> >Secondly, could you improve the documentation for
> >svn_fs_node_created_rev() so that we know what invariant we're depending
> >on?
> I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here.

Sorry I wasn't clear. We're relying on a certain behaviour from
svn_fs_node_created_rev() that's not well documented, specifically that
it returns a real revision when called on the root of an unmodified
transaction. I was thinking that we should document that in the
doc-comments for that function.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Sep 19 16:43:37 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.