On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 13:36, Branko Èibej wrote:
> >You're only considering deltas in the FS here.
> >You're only considering deltas in the FS here.
Whoops, bad editing. Didn't mean to repeat myself.
> Anyway, I think quite a few of these error messages -- and this one
> specifically -- may be too mired in the technicalities of the
> implementation. Would it make sense to review them, make them more
> user-friendly, whilst still being clear/unique enough for developers to
> find where the problem is coming from?
Most of the highly technical error messages should never be seen by
users using our code. If they do happen, it's sort of anyone's guess as
to why: network traffic or FS data was corrupted, someone implemented
their own delta code and got it wrong, we sprouted a bug, whatever.
I think the best approach to fixing confusing error messages is to watch
the users list or the IRC channel for people reporting them (90% of our
error messages genuinely are never seen), figure out the reproduction
recipe, and then figure out how to fix it--possibly not by changing the
error message, but by detecting it in a higher-level function and
annotating or replacing it with a more meaningful message. If I ever
run out of big fish to fry, I hope to do some of that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 26 22:17:57 2004