Hey Shawn, Thanks for taking a look at this.
All of these points seem a bit orthogonal to the original change, but I'm happy to include them since they seem likely to cause either tracebacks or other annoying issues. On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:03:42AM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 03/10/10 03:57 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >http://cr.opensolaris.org/~johansen/webrev-15119/ > > src/modules/client/transport/transport.py: > lines 158, 239, 375, 730, 816, 1207, 1278: intentional omission of > ccancel? I'm not sure if this was intentional or not. My guess is that we probably want to make this cancelable in all cases. I may have written the part of the code the requires the portal test to be re-run if its cancelled after adding the ccancel bit, which would explain why these didn't get updated. I'll change this. > line 419: not related to changeset, but this exception doesn't > exist anymore; just raise I should be able to delete this exception handler entirely, no? Out of curiosity, what does the caller of get_catalog1 expect in this situation now? Should the underlying code continue to treat a 304 as a permanent failure? > lines 1805-1806: bytes is a python built-in keyword, perhaps nbytes? Sure, will change. Thanks again, -j _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
