2009-08-22 01:28:17 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): > 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
The original wording didn't disallow affecting die(). Not disallowed things
are always allowed.
> > > 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.
"it went through the usual Council-mandated process for such a change" clearly
contradicts "There was no change".
> 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.
You broke 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.
It wasn't stated as I said above in my 2 first sentences in this e-mail.
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
