On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:15:18 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfre...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > There was no change to the definition of nonfatal. > > There was a change regardless of what you think.
No, you were misreading the original wording (which I quite happy
admit was wide open for misreading), hence the need for the
clarification.
> > There was a clarification of the wording after it became clear that
> > there was room to misinterpret the intent of the original wording,
> > and it went through the usual Council-mandated process for such a
> > change.
>
> This sentence contradicts your first sentence.
No, it doesn't.
The original wording used the phrase "abort the build process due to a
failure". The intent was that this would cover commands that had
language like "Failure behaviour is EAPI dependent as per
section~\ref{sec:failure-behaviour}.".
The language for 'die' does not say "due to a failure", and so was not
supposed to be affected by 'nonfatal'.
However, that wasn't explicit, so your misreading of the intent of the
document is entirely understandable. That is why we fixed it.
> Additionally you had deceived Christian Faulhammer by not presenting
> negative consequences of your patch and your interpretation of
> original wording of definition of nonfatal().
The only consequence of the patch was to clarify what was already
stated.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
