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

Re: svn commit: r1050216 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/private/svn_ra_private.h libsvn_ra/util.c svnrdump/load_editor.c svnsync/main.c

From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:04:04 -0500

On 12/18/2010 04:29 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> cmpilato_at_apache.org wrote on Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 23:10:10 -0000:

[...]

>> * subversion/libsvn_ra/util.c
>> (is_atomicity_error): Moved here from svnsync/main.c.
>> (svn_ra__release_operational_lock): New, abstracted from
>> svnsync/main.c:maybe_unlock().
>> (svn_ra__get_operational_lock): New, abstracted from
>> svnsync/main.c:get_lock().
>>
>
> Not exactly the same as svnsync's versions, since you added the
> 'stolen_lock_p' parameter. (and the log message doesn't mention that)

I'm not claiming they are the same. I'm claiming that essentially logic
therein was culled from the svnsync functions. I note that they are "New",
and it's not our practice to list the parameters of new functions. :-)

If it was a simple function move, I would use the syntax as above with
is_atomicity_error -- "Move here from..." or "Was ...".

>> + if (is_atomicity_error(err))
>> + return svn_error_quick_wrap(err,
>> + _("Lock was stolen; unable to remove it"));
>
> s/was stolen/was stolen by '%s'/ ?

Ah yes, good suggestion. r1051157.

OOH! I just noticed a bug, though -- when I switched to using
svn_string_compare() (instead of strcmp()ing ->data elements) I didn't
switch the boolean sense. Will fix.

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

Received on 2010-12-20 17:58:08 CET

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