On 3/2/15 2:53 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
So you mean that we're going to have to act like mature software devs
and have regression tests (atf) and such? I welcome such a change.
On 3/2/15 5:25 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 3/2/15 4:25 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
On 2 Mar 2015, at 09:16, Julian Elischer <jul...@freebsd.org> wrote:
if we develop a suitable post processor with pluggable grammars, we
save a lot of work.
given enough examples you could almost have automatically generated
This decoupled approach is problematic. A large part of the point
of libxo is to allow changing the human-readable output without
breaking tools that consume the output. Now I need to keep the tool
that consumes it and the tool that produces it in sync, so that's an
extra set of moving parts. When you throw jails with multiple
versions of world into the mix, it becomes a recipe for disaster.
why? the jail has it own /usr/share?
I think the risk is exactly opposite. That the human readable output
will change subtly with bugs in the xo implementation.
and people will not update the two output paths in exactly the same
way, leading bugs. I'm not going to fight on it, but I am
uncomfortable with it.
You are increasing the complexity of every program you touch.
And its utility as well. Worth it.
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"