Karen Tung wrote: > Jean McCormack wrote: >> Please review the following webrev for defects 4352 & 4354 >> >> Defects: >> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=4352 >> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=4354 >> >> Webrev: >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jeanm/slim_4352_4354/ >> >> Jean >> _______________________________________________ >> caiman-discuss mailing list >> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >> > Hi Jean, > > Here are my comments: > > distro_const.py, line 51: > - What's changed in this line? I don't see anything, but it indicated > that it's changed. > manifest <underscore> file was changed to manifest<dash>file. This now agrees with the rest of the usage statement.
distro_const.py, line 574: > - While the code works the way it is now, > I am concern about the possibility of information lost by just > returning 2 for > all the SystemExit. It's true that right now, the usage() is the only > thing that returns 2. > What about in the future? What about other part of the DC code that > might > call SystemExit() with an error message that we want to see? > IMO, it is more correct to define an exception specific to usage > related errors, > and catch that exception, assign the appropriate return code, and > leave SystemExit() > the way it is. That sounds good. Jean > > Thanks, > > --Karen
