On 11/14/05, Daniel Berlin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 22:07 +0000, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Greg Hudson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 12:19 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > >
> > >>Is it worth the expense of stat'ing every file on every update on some
> > >>common file systems, just to issue an error message *early* about an
> > >>incredibly uncommon case that issues an error message anyway?
> > >
> > > I agree with you; stat'ing every entry is too much of a cost for this.
> > Yes, and your broad plan for fixing it sounds fine. (I haven't looked any closer.)
> > > On a somewhat orthogonal note, the error mesage "Working copy 'foo' is
> > > missing or not locked" is, in my view, a bug any time the user sees it.
> > That's why the default message for that error is "Working copy not locked; this
> > is probably a bug, please report". Unfortunately this particular usage
> > replaces the default message with one that adds some information but loses the
> > second part. That's a bug: it should either include all relevant parts of the
> > default message, or issue its own message in a linked error rather than as a
> > replacement.
> Well, i've changed it to the attached, which tries to discover more
> interesting reasons for why we couldn't retrieve the adm_access.
> I hate having error handling here, but it looks like it is the only
> place lower in the hierarchy to do it, since this is the failure point,
> and the only thing above it is the retrieve call.
> Take a look at report_revisions and you'll see what i mean.
Daniel, why you have decided don't change generic error from "Working
copy is missing or not locked" to "Working copy not locked; this is
probably a bug, please report". I consider at this point we know that
working copy exists, right?
Received on Mon Nov 14 08:21:52 2005