Hi Kamil, On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:02:32 +0100, Kamil Dworakowski wrote: > >> I have changed the definition of get_log not to delete the logfile, but to > >> return it for deferred deletion. I capitalized on the fact that get_log > >> was already returning (Just temp_logfile) for deferred deletion. > >> > >> get_log is an exported name, used in AmendRecord, Tag and Rollback. Some > >> of them ignore the logfile to delete, though none of them accept > >> --delete-logfile flag, and thus they don't need to change, nor are they > >> affected in any way. > >> > >> Unintended side effect of the change: with --delete-logfile flag present, > >> a > >> massage '"Logfile left in " ++ filepath' gets printed in case of the test > >> failure on record. This may actually be desirable so I did not bother to > >> change it.
Actually, re-reading this log and trying to rewrite it to make it more concise, I now think it's just about perfect. > Is this only about some fuzzy line between what information should go > into the patch log and what should go into the post description? Obviously > greeting and such belong only to the post. My justification of the amendment > also belongs to the post not to the log. Though in retrospect I could have > put the justification for replacing removeFileMayNotExist with unchecked > deferring of deletion (later it is removed using removeFile) inside the log. Sorry, only fuzziness. I was going to say that it's probably best to remove the coder from the log (I did foo; etc) and just focus on the code (foo has this property), but then when I tried to write it that way, it seemed horribly stilted so I preferred your version. Go figure... -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
