On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:36:09AM +1200, Robin Sheat wrote:
> My feelings on making koha-create more atomic are that this might
> require a rewrite in Perl to really do it. Ideally for every operation
> performed, we would store the undo operation onto a list. If we
> encounter a failure, we play
Tomas Cohen Arazi schreef op di 23-04-2013 om 12:24 [-0300]:
> I'd like you to (1) tell me if its ok that I patch them in bash (which
> is what they are written in) and (2) if you have the time, discuss
> here the current and desired semantics for those commands, including
> the option switches.
M
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Galen Charlton wrote:
>
> My biggest desideratum for these scripts is that koha-create be atomic
> -- in other words, that it either completely succeed, or if it fails,
> completely clean up after itself so that it can be re-run cleanly
> after the underlying prob
Greetings,
My biggest desideratum for these scripts is that koha-create
be atomic -- in other words, that it either completely succeed,
or if it fails, completely clean up after itself so that it can be
re-run cleanly after the underlying problem is fixed.
(+1)*
AMEN! and AMEN! -- When I first
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Tomas Cohen Arazi wrote:
> I'm doing this on a per-koha-script basis. For the task I'm revisiting each
> koha-* command to avoid messing with option switches combinations. I've
> already found some tiny problems (mostly poor error handling).
Thanks for taking
Hi, I'm working on providing a bash-completion script for koha commands, so
we have that handy tool for our commands.
I'm doing this on a per-koha-script basis. For the task I'm revisiting each
koha-* command to avoid messing with option switches combinations. I've
already found some tiny problems
