Mailing-List: contact commits-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@subversion.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:03:12 +0200
From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
To: dev@subversion.apache.org, commits@subversion.apache.org
Subject: 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
Message-ID: <20101220170312.GE19037@daniel3.local>
References: <20101216231010.83F572388A64@eris.apache.org>
 <20101218212940.GE9153@daniel3.local> <4D0F7E74.1080400@collab.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D0F7E74.1080400@collab.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:04:04 -0500:
> On 12/18/2010 04:29 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > cmpilato@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 ...".
> 

When I read the log message, I assumed it was a function move+rename.

I didn't know we had just two hard-coded syntaxes whitelisted for use in
the event of moving a function :-)