Re: svn commit: r1888446 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/include/private/svn_task.h
On 07.04.21 06:47, Nathan Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 2:37 PM wrote:
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/include/private/svn_task.h?rev=1888446=auto
[snip]
A couple of really minor nits:
+ * During execution, a task may add further sub-tasks - equivalent to
+ * sub-function calls. They will be executed after their parent task
+ * has been processed forming an growing tree of *isolated* tasks.
s/an/a; ("a growing tree")
[snip]
+ * Errors are detected in strictly the same order, with only the first one
+ * being returned from the task runner. In particular, it may not be the
+ * first error that occurs timewise but only the first one encountered when
+ * walking the tree and checking the processing results for errors. Because
+ * it takes some time make the workers cancel all outstanding tasks,
Did you mean: "...some time _to_ make the workers cancel..."
Thank you for the review. Things should be fixed in r1888523.
-- Stefan^2.
Re: svn commit: r1888446 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/include/private/svn_task.h
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 2:37 PM wrote:
> URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/include/private/svn_task.h?rev=1888446=auto
[snip]
A couple of really minor nits:
> + * During execution, a task may add further sub-tasks - equivalent to
> + * sub-function calls. They will be executed after their parent task
> + * has been processed forming an growing tree of *isolated* tasks.
s/an/a; ("a growing tree")
[snip]
> + * Errors are detected in strictly the same order, with only the first one
> + * being returned from the task runner. In particular, it may not be the
> + * first error that occurs timewise but only the first one encountered when
> + * walking the tree and checking the processing results for errors. Because
> + * it takes some time make the workers cancel all outstanding tasks,
Did you mean: "...some time _to_ make the workers cancel..."
It is late for me now but I'll try to review the code (not just
docstrings) tomorrow.
Things are much clearer now with the docstrings added. :-)
Thanks for your work on this.
Cheers,
Nathan
