On 17 April 2017 at 19:34, Kim Alvefur wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 02:32:22PM +0100, Matthew Wild wrote:
>> - Treat the request as an atomic change: succeed for all, or fail
>> all (i.e. if one of the JIDs is malformed, don't allow any of the
>> other changes in the request
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 02:32:22PM +0100, Matthew Wild wrote:
> - Treat the request as an atomic change: succeed for all, or fail
> all (i.e. if one of the JIDs is malformed, don't allow any of the
> other changes in the request to take place). This would require work
> to either pre-verify the
On 17.04.2017 15:32, Matthew Wild wrote:
> On 17 April 2017 at 13:43, Lennart Sauerbeck
> wrote:
>> - Regarding the error handling in lines 49, 55 and in-tree 801 (the last
>> one is not in the patch because I did no changes there): Is it okay to
>> just send multiple