Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 08:53, <phi...@apache.org> wrote: >> ... >> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_wc.h Tue Mar 9 13:53:38 2010 >> @@ -4729,14 +4729,14 @@ svn_wc_committed_queue_create(apr_pool_t >> >> /** >> * Queue committed items to be processed later by >> - * svn_wc_process_committed_queue(). >> + * svn_wc_process_committed_queue2(). >> * >> - * All pointer data passed to this function (@a path, @a adm_access, >> - * @a wcprop_changes and @a checksum) should remain valid until the queue >> - * has been processed by svn_wc_process_committed_queue(). >> + * All pointer data passed to this function (@a path, @a wcprop_changes >> + * and @a checksum) should remain valid until the queue >> + * has been processed by svn_wc_process_committed_queue2(). >> * >> * Record in @a queue that @a path will need to be bumped after a commit >> - * succeeds. @a adm_access must hold a write lock appropriate for @a path. >> + * succeeds. >> * >> * If non-NULL, @a wcprop_changes is an array of <tt>svn_prop_t *</tt> >> * changes to wc properties; if an #svn_prop_t->value is NULL, then >> @@ -4763,7 +4763,25 @@ svn_wc_committed_queue_create(apr_pool_t >> * it will bump ALL nodes under the directory, regardless of their >> * actual inclusion in the new revision. >> * >> + * @since New in 1.7. >> + */ >> +svn_error_t * >> +svn_wc_queue_committed3(svn_wc_committed_queue_t *queue, >> + const char *path, >> + svn_boolean_t recurse, >> + const apr_array_header_t *wcprop_changes, >> + svn_boolean_t remove_lock, >> + svn_boolean_t remove_changelist, >> + const svn_checksum_t *checksum, >> + apr_pool_t *scratch_pool); > > Note: internally, I renamed those booleans to match their command-line > flags. no_unlock and keep_changelist. Those are *inverted* from the > above semantics, but I think they're inherently more descriptive since > they correspond to actual user operations. Since you are revising the > function, we could take this opportunity to rename the flags and > invert their meaning. > > My only caution here, would be somebody adding a "3" to their function > call and dropping the access baton. And NOT stopping to invert the > meaning. > > Thoughts?
We could also change the argument order to get compile time errors. ~Neels
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
