1 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:15:18 +0200 |
2 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > There was no change to the definition of nonfatal. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> There was a change regardless of what you think. |
6 |
|
7 |
No, you were misreading the original wording (which I quite happy |
8 |
admit was wide open for misreading), hence the need for the |
9 |
clarification. |
10 |
|
11 |
> > There was a clarification of the wording after it became clear that |
12 |
> > there was room to misinterpret the intent of the original wording, |
13 |
> > and it went through the usual Council-mandated process for such a |
14 |
> > change. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> This sentence contradicts your first sentence. |
17 |
|
18 |
No, it doesn't. |
19 |
|
20 |
The original wording used the phrase "abort the build process due to a |
21 |
failure". The intent was that this would cover commands that had |
22 |
language like "Failure behaviour is EAPI dependent as per |
23 |
section~\ref{sec:failure-behaviour}.". |
24 |
|
25 |
The language for 'die' does not say "due to a failure", and so was not |
26 |
supposed to be affected by 'nonfatal'. |
27 |
|
28 |
However, that wasn't explicit, so your misreading of the intent of the |
29 |
document is entirely understandable. That is why we fixed it. |
30 |
|
31 |
> Additionally you had deceived Christian Faulhammer by not presenting |
32 |
> negative consequences of your patch and your interpretation of |
33 |
> original wording of definition of nonfatal(). |
34 |
|
35 |
The only consequence of the patch was to clarify what was already |
36 |
stated. |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Ciaran McCreesh |