> On Dec 13, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: > >> On 12/13/18 10:45 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: >> Uh. I forgot about the malfunction handler. However this doesn't really >> help, other than putting possibly sensitive paths into the crash handler >> info? We really shouldn't do it this way, users *will* just copy and >> paste the output tot he 'net. > > Ahem. What Grandpa *meant* to say was: > > "Oh, cool! So there _is_ a way to report the non-canonical path. > Thanks for figuring this out, Julian! Unfortunately, it comes at a > cost, namely that of revealing potentially sensitive paths in the output > which I strongly suspect will get copied and paste to the 'net. If we > could mitigate that part of it, this might turn out to be truly beneficial." > > ;-)
Honestly, it seems like complete FUD to me and trying to save face or just be obstinate. FWIW, I agree with Stefan on all of this. We should not be doing abort from a library. Whether TSVN could do more to avoid it seems like a separate issue. I do not see why the library cannot just return a useful error and allow the caller to handle it. Mark
