Re: [PATCH] Update to out-of-date code comments

Gabriela Gibson wrote on Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 14:13:01 +0000:
> [[[
> Update code comments in a number of files which refer to "main.c", where
> the file has been renamed.
>
> Update to comments in subversion/svnsync/svnsync.c and
> subversion/svnrdump/load_editor.c which referred to the function
> (get_lock) being duplicated, where the prototypes differ slightly.
>

"the function get_lock()"

> * subversion/svnrdump/load_editor.c:
> (get_lock): Changed comment to refer to "similar" function.

Two spaces indent, not four. Also we prefer imperative to past tense
here.

> Patch by Gabriela Gibson <gabriela.gibson_at_gmail.com>

Colon after 'by'.

> Index: subversion/tests/svn_test_main.c
> ===================================================================
> --- subversion/tests/svn_test_main.c (revision 1426182)
> +++ subversion/tests/svn_test_main.c (working copy)
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> /*
> - * tests-main.c: shared main() & friends for SVN test-suite programs
> + * svn_tests_main.c: shared main() & friends for SVN test-suite programs

Typo in filename ("tests" singular).

> /* Acquire a lock (of sorts) on the repository associated with the
> * given RA SESSION. This lock is just a revprop change attempt in a
> - * time-delay loop. This function is duplicated by svnrdump in
> - * load_editor.c.
> + * time-delay loop. A similar function used by svnrdump is defined in
> + * svnrdump/load_editor.c

Why did you s/duplicate/similar/? I think the former is better (for its
"if you change me, change that other one too" implication).

That's all. All in all I'm not sure whether to just apply it or wait
for another iteration, I'll go for the latter. Thanks for the patch!

Daniel
Received on 2012-12-27 18:25:39 CET