Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 16:52:50 +0530:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:40:49 +0200:
> > > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:29:58AM +0100, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > > 2. If you do duplicate code, then add big comments (in all instances of
> > > > the duplication) pointing to the other instances.
> > >
> > > +1
> I've mentioned it in the commit message, but alright- I'll add a
> comment in the file.
Please add a comment to svnsync's get_lock() as well.
> > > > 3. Incidentally, I have modified the svnsync instance of this function
> > > > on the atomic-revprops branch. So the desire to avoid duplication isn't
> > > > just theoretical in this case...
> > >
> > > We should fix the race in svnrdump on the atomic-revprop branch as well.
> > >
> > No problem; r998622. (The svnsync patch isn't committed yet, but it
> > should be easy to port it to svnrdump.)
> Ok, let me know when it's done. I'll port it to svnrdump too.
Thanks for the offer. I can do that myself, though; svnrdump is
a first-class citizen now, as is this duplication (per the direction
this thread seems to be going), so AFAICT all cards say the branch
maintainer should be adding that to svnrdump.
Received on 2010-09-20 06:39:15 CEST