Hi David, Thanks for taking time to address this... Yes, I think this is a good idea. As long as your patch doesn't break any existing functionality and correctly update affected tests, I think partial checks are good.
Satheesh David Van Couvering wrote: > Hi, all. I am thinking it would be beneficial to provide a partial > patch of the network client i18n be submitted to the codeline. This > would be the general framework and about 100 converted messages. > > I am worried that if I wait until it's all done, it's a lot of > messages, and the reviewer would have a hard time working through it > all. The other advantage is that reviewers can catch any issues > before I convert the all of the messages, potentially saving me a lot > of time. The observed behavior change for the user would be the > following: > > - Some percentage of exceptions will have valid SQL states rather than > null SQL staes > - Some messages have changed slightly (some of them were worded pretty > "sparsely", like "Driver not capable") > - There is a new default error code for network client exceptions that > is more in line with the error codes coming from the server > > Would a partial checkin of the i18n be acceptable, or does someone > have a strong objection to this? > > Thanks, > > David >
