On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 00:17:21 +0200 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chith...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb: > > Ensure that proper number of parameters is passed to each versionator > > function; die otherwise. This prevents the functions from proceeding > > with undefined behavior when mis-called. > > You are making what versionator.eclass accepts stricter. That it used to work > when passed multiple versions may be unintentional, but I think you need to > introduce a new eclass or new function names in this case. So, to summarize we shouldn't fix existing code because people did assume accepting invalid parameters was fine. What we should do instead is create an almost identical copy of it, ask people to switch to new code with parameter checks. But... why? If people already pass valid parameters, then new and old code would be functionally identical. If they do not, then they can fix parameters and stay with the old code. But they shouldn't have been doing that in the first place... So in the end, we create another copy of the functions that's used inconsistently with the old copy, and only when people feel like switching. Then ebuilds will fail just the same because people wouldn't care to *ensure* they pass valid parameters while switching, as long as they won't trigger it on their limited test case... -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpUMSncJP8S8.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
