Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 15:59:34 +0000:
> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 17:40 +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 15:34:48 +0000:
> > > First step: this patch fixes the comments. Good to commit?
> > >
> > > [[[
> > > Index: subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c (revision 1041350)
> > > +++ subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c (working copy)
> > > @@ -7606,8 +7606,8 @@ pack_shard(const char *revs_dir,
> > > SVN_ERR(svn_io_set_file_read_only(manifest_file_path, FALSE, pool));
> > >
> > > /* Update the min-unpacked-rev file to reflect our newly packed shard.
> > > - * (ffd->min_unpacked_rev will be updated by open_pack_or_rev_file().)
> > > - */
> > > + * (This doesn't update ffd->min_unpacked_rev. That will be updated by
> > > + * open_pack_or_rev_file() when necessary.) */
> >
> > Didn't you mean s/open_pack_or_rev_file/update_min_unpacked_rev/?
>
> I was just modifying the existing comment and assuming it had some truth
> or meaning in mentioning open_pack_or_rev_file(). Not sure what,
> exactly.
Today, either open_pack_or_rev_file() or with_some_lock() may call
update_min_unpacked_rev(). The latter didn't call it at the time
I wrote the comment.
I'll update the wording in a moment.
Received on 2010-12-02 17:05:58 CET