Of the given choices, I would choose option 2. Not sure if there's a better way. Maybe we could add a "// backported. not used" comment next to each unused error code?
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Lars Volker <[email protected]> wrote: > Compilation fails if they are not: Numeric error codes must start from 0, > be in order, and not have any gaps: got 94, expected 91 > > Since I'm backporting a fix it feels dangerous to remove that restriction > in the process. > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Henry Robinson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > How about not changing the code? Is there any reason they have to be > > gapless? > > > > On 20 October 2016 at 16:12, Lars Volker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > When backporting a change that introduced a new error code to an older > > > version Impala there seem to be two options to prevent gaps in the > error > > > codes: > > > > > > > > > - Change the error code number during the backport. This will result > > in > > > different error codes between versions > > > - Backport all new error codes that have been introduced prior to > that > > > change, so that the error code stays the same. > > > > > > Are there other alternatives? Which way should I go? > > > > > > Thanks, Lars > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Henry Robinson > > Software Engineer > > Cloudera > > 415-994-6679 > > >
