1 |
2009-08-22 01:28:17 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): |
2 |
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:15:18 +0200 |
3 |
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > > There was no change to the definition of nonfatal. |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > There was a change regardless of what you think. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> No, you were misreading the original wording |
9 |
|
10 |
The original wording didn't disallow affecting die(). Not disallowed things |
11 |
are always allowed. |
12 |
|
13 |
> > > There was a clarification of the wording after it became clear that |
14 |
> > > there was room to misinterpret the intent of the original wording, |
15 |
> > > and it went through the usual Council-mandated process for such a |
16 |
> > > change. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > This sentence contradicts your first sentence. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> No, it doesn't. |
21 |
|
22 |
"it went through the usual Council-mandated process for such a change" clearly |
23 |
contradicts "There was no change". |
24 |
|
25 |
> The original wording used the phrase "abort the build process due to a |
26 |
> failure". The intent was that this would cover commands that had |
27 |
> language like "Failure behaviour is EAPI dependent as per |
28 |
> section~\ref{sec:failure-behaviour}.". |
29 |
> |
30 |
> The language for 'die' does not say "due to a failure", and so was not |
31 |
> supposed to be affected by 'nonfatal'. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> However, that wasn't explicit, so your misreading of the intent of the |
34 |
> document is entirely understandable. That is why we fixed it. |
35 |
|
36 |
You broke it. |
37 |
|
38 |
> > Additionally you had deceived Christian Faulhammer by not presenting |
39 |
> > negative consequences of your patch and your interpretation of |
40 |
> > original wording of definition of nonfatal(). |
41 |
> |
42 |
> The only consequence of the patch was to clarify what was already |
43 |
> stated. |
44 |
|
45 |
It wasn't stated as I said above in my 2 first sentences in this e-mail. |
46 |
|
47 |
-- |
48 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis |