FWIW there's no specific reason that we don't allow gaps in the error code. There was a bug in the generator script that meant it didn't handle them properly, so I turned that off at one point, but it may not be a very hard fix to support it.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Sailesh Mukil <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > >
