2009-08-22 01:28:17 Ciaran McCreesh napisaĆ(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.