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