You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> on 2010/05/19 12:54:09 UTC
Re: svn commit: r945034 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion:
include/private/svn_wc_private.h libsvn_client/commit_util.c libsvn_wc/node.c
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 05:03, <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: philip
> Date: Mon May 17 09:03:36 2010
> New Revision: 945034
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=945034&view=rev
> Log:
> * subversion/include/private/svn_wc_private.h
> (svn_wc__db_temp_get_keep_local): Renamed to ...
> (svn_wc__temp_get_keep_local): ... this.
>
> * subversion/libsvn_wc/node.c
> (svn_wc__db_temp_get_keep_local): Renamed to ...
> (svn_wc__temp_get_keep_local): ... this.
Okay. This is better. But really... why was this ever named something
*besides* svn_wc__node_foo. ? It lives in node.c just like all the
other node functions. All node functions are temporary, by definition.
I just don't understand the rationale for why it ever used a different
namespace to start with.
??
>...
(not asking for change; just insight)
Cheers,
-g
Re: svn commit: r945034 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/private/svn_wc_private.h libsvn_client/commit_util.c libsvn_wc/node.c
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 05:03, <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: philip
>> Date: Mon May 17 09:03:36 2010
>> New Revision: 945034
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=945034&view=rev
>> Log:
>> * subversion/include/private/svn_wc_private.h
>> (svn_wc__db_temp_get_keep_local): Renamed to ...
>> (svn_wc__temp_get_keep_local): ... this.
>>
>> * subversion/libsvn_wc/node.c
>> (svn_wc__db_temp_get_keep_local): Renamed to ...
>> (svn_wc__temp_get_keep_local): ... this.
>
> Okay. This is better. But really... why was this ever named something
> *besides* svn_wc__node_foo. ? It lives in node.c just like all the
> other node functions. All node functions are temporary, by definition.
> I just don't understand the rationale for why it ever used a different
> namespace to start with.
>
> ??
>
>>...
>
> (not asking for change; just insight)
I simply got confused by our naming conventions.
--
Philip