[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r1222522 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 11:31:04 +0100

On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 11:00:26AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 25.12.2011 10:20, schamel23_at_spinor.com wrote:
> > On 2011-12-25 06:37, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> There are always going to be cases where you have to
> >> decide between aborting, or risking data corruption (or worse). Which
> >> would you pick?
> >
> > Definitely data corruption, because (except for bugs) every data
> > corruption is continuable and somehow recoverable,
> > e.g. in the worst case by the user re-checking out the wc.
> That's an interesting point of view. You are of course assuming that
> such data corruption is easily detectable. And that it doesn't waste
> days of work.

And that it isn't exploitable...

I don't think this conversation can get anywhere because the terms are
too abstract. We should be discussing specific examples.
Stefan already provided some and I agree that we've been using assertions
too generously in some cases. In other cases they're warranted.
We'll have to review our SVN_ERR_ASSERT calls and take appropriate
action on a case-by-case basis.
Received on 2011-12-25 11:31:41 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.