On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:39:03 -0800 > Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Regex you've got there allows for pulling the wrong text- recall, ebd > > originally was doing grep based filtering (regex). Had to rewrite > > that in a major hurry since bash syntax (specifically here ops) > > forces you to track state/constructs rather then just a regex... > > Not really an issue in this case. First the code bails out if more than > one match is found, so unless the metadata assignment is NOT found by > it we don't get the wrong info. > Also a mismatch in this special is so > extremely unlikely that honestly I don't really care about it, > especially as this is a one time conversion (might be different if I'd > have added the on the fly extraction).
Re-read that statement. It's a one time conversion- meaning we better get it right the first time, else the user's data is effectively corrupted. Forcing a full regen from the saved environment is not a solution for fixing past corruptions either. If it were on the fly extraction, I wouldn't care quite as much- but the fact this is an untracked change to the users data means we *do* need to cover corner cases. I know you want this in, but it has to be done *right* covering all known corner cases for it- I already wrote the tool that handles the corner cases properly, use it, don't adhoc a solution that re-introduces the potential gaps. If we're not going to do it right, we really shouldn't do it when it comes to upgrades of the vdb. Aside from that, if the code is in debate (as this is), I really don't think it should get slid into svn 2 weeks later effectively unchanged- didn't write that original email just for the hell of it :) ~harring
pgp8DlaOCY2aR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
