On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:08:54 -0500 Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:43:58 -0300 > > Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:22:15 -0500 > >> anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > We had a violent^Wheated discussion on IRC about how to move forward > >> > with Luiz's proposed error series. I think we reached consensus. This > >> > note attempts to outline that. > >> > >> This looks great to me, violent^W heated discussions can be so productive > >> :) > >> > >> > > >> > Principles > >> > ---------- > >> > 1. Errors should be free formed strings with a class code > >> > > >> > 2. There should be a small number of class codes (10-15) added > >> > strictly when there are specific users of a code. > > > > Btw, do we have a listing of those 10-15 errors already? > > See the clause: "added strictly when there are specific users". > > Users means consumers. So don't add an error type until someone cares > to differientiate error reasons. What I meant is that, for 1.2 we want to reduce from 71 error codes to 10-15, right? If that's right what are the 10-15 errors that won't be dropped? Or did I misunderstand?
