Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 15:59:34 +0000: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 17:40 +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 15:34:48 +0000: > > > First step: this patch fixes the comments. Good to commit? > > > > > > [[[ > > > Index: subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c > > > =================================================================== > > > --- subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c (revision 1041350) > > > +++ subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c (working copy) > > > @@ -7606,8 +7606,8 @@ pack_shard(const char *revs_dir, > > > SVN_ERR(svn_io_set_file_read_only(manifest_file_path, FALSE, pool)); > > > > > > /* Update the min-unpacked-rev file to reflect our newly packed shard. > > > - * (ffd->min_unpacked_rev will be updated by open_pack_or_rev_file().) > > > - */ > > > + * (This doesn't update ffd->min_unpacked_rev. That will be updated by > > > + * open_pack_or_rev_file() when necessary.) */ > > > > Didn't you mean s/open_pack_or_rev_file/update_min_unpacked_rev/? > > I was just modifying the existing comment and assuming it had some truth > or meaning in mentioning open_pack_or_rev_file(). Not sure what, > exactly.
Today, either open_pack_or_rev_file() or with_some_lock() may call update_min_unpacked_rev(). The latter didn't call it at the time I wrote the comment. I'll update the wording in a moment.
