| 1 |
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:39:41 +0200 |
| 2 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > There was a change regardless of what you think. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > No, you were misreading the original wording |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The original wording didn't disallow affecting die(). Not disallowed |
| 8 |
> things are always allowed. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Er, no. The wording describes the extent of what die and nonfatal do. |
| 11 |
There's nothing in the die description about it being affected by |
| 12 |
nonfatal, and nothing in the nonfatal description about affecting die, |
| 13 |
so neither affect each other. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
PMS doesn't say "nonfatal must not chmod +s ${D}/bin/sh", so do you |
| 16 |
believe that nonfatal would be allowed to do that too? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> > > > There was a clarification of the wording after it became clear |
| 19 |
> > > > that there was room to misinterpret the intent of the original |
| 20 |
> > > > wording, and it went through the usual Council-mandated process |
| 21 |
> > > > for such a change. |
| 22 |
> > > |
| 23 |
> > > This sentence contradicts your first sentence. |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > No, it doesn't. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> "it went through the usual Council-mandated process for such a |
| 28 |
> change" clearly contradicts "There was no change". |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
There was a change in wording to better convey the original intent. |
| 31 |
There was no change in behaviour. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> > The original wording used the phrase "abort the build process due |
| 34 |
> > to a failure". The intent was that this would cover commands that |
| 35 |
> > had language like "Failure behaviour is EAPI dependent as per |
| 36 |
> > section~\ref{sec:failure-behaviour}.". |
| 37 |
> > |
| 38 |
> > The language for 'die' does not say "due to a failure", and so was |
| 39 |
> > not supposed to be affected by 'nonfatal'. |
| 40 |
> > |
| 41 |
> > However, that wasn't explicit, so your misreading of the intent of |
| 42 |
> > the document is entirely understandable. That is why we fixed it. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> You broke it. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
I made the wording more clearly present the original intent. That is |
| 47 |
all. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> > > Additionally you had deceived Christian Faulhammer by not |
| 50 |
> > > presenting negative consequences of your patch and your |
| 51 |
> > > interpretation of original wording of definition of nonfatal(). |
| 52 |
> > |
| 53 |
> > The only consequence of the patch was to clarify what was already |
| 54 |
> > stated. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> It wasn't stated as I said above in my 2 first sentences in this |
| 57 |
> e-mail. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
It was. The extent of the behaviour of nonfatal is described in PMS. |
| 60 |
You can't go around inventing magic new behaviour for it that isn't |
| 61 |
specified. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
-- |
| 64 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives