On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 05:47:28PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Please address my earlier review question, asking why this needs to be
> implemented in the library and can't be done satisfactorily in user
> (C or Python) code.
Well... let me turn this around on you and ask:
Why should it not be in the library?
You're implying that there is some good, apparently self-evident,
reason that it should not be done in the library. When asking others
to argue against that it helps to explain your own reasoning first.
My reasoning is that using a callback to issue a warning about
failed verification is adding value to an established notification
mechanism that is already used for similar tasks in other contexts.
So it's great to expand the notification system a bit to support
the use case of reporting bad revisions during a verification run.
I still think that it should just be the default mode of operation
anyway, with a summary at the end as Julian suggested. But I'm
equally happy with a --keep-going option if that is easier for
Prabhu to implement. I'm not going to have time to write the code
myself so I'm happy to accept whatever approach the patch submitter
believes is best (as long as the approach is within reason, which
I think it is).
Received on 2012-10-21 18:09:13 CEST