On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> Currently, svn_wc__entry_modify() is described as follows:
>
> /* Modify an entry for NAME in access baton ADM_ACCESS by folding in
> ("merging") changes, and sync those changes to disk. New values
> for the entry are pulled from their respective fields in ENTRY, and
> MODIFY_FLAGS is a bitmask to specify which of those field to pay
> attention to. ADM_ACCESS must hold a write lock.
>
> - ENTRY->kind specifies the node kind for this entry, and is
> *required* to be set to one of the following valid values:
> 'svn_node_dir', 'svn_node_file'.
>
> - NAME can be NULL to specify that the caller wishes to modify the
> "this dir" entry in ADM_ACCESS.
>
> ...
>
>
> The thing is, we already call this function with invalid (uninitialised)
> ENTRY->kind values in several places, so I was curious as to why the
> comment was there. And as far as I can see, there's no reason at all
> (not even in r1531, when it was introduced!).
>
> If it's just a bogus comment, I'd like to remove it (see the attached
> trivial patch), but I'm concerned that I might be missing something...
I don't know of any reason not to remove the comments. Looks fine to me.
- Dan
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Fri Jan 12 21:23:42 2007