Re: stgit restrictions on patch names

From: Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2007, 07:29 UTC
Message-ID: <20071026072924.GA11286@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20071025194808.GV26436@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net>

On 2007-10-25 21:48:08 +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Do we want to:
>
> - implement a mechanism for checking beforehand that the operation
> will not fail? Seems awkward to duplicate checks already found
> elsewhere.

Duplication is bad. Calling the same verification function more times than necessary is still bad, but maybe not so bad that it wouldn't be OK.

> - wait for proper transactions so we can rollback on error ?

Yes, this is what we should aim for. I'm working on code that'll eventually give us this if it pans out.

> - on clone error, delete the newly-created stack ? I'd vote for this
> one, until the previous one gets done.

Seems reasonable.

> => is there any particular reason why we would refuse "+" ?

Not that I can think of at the moment, except maybe future-proofing.

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
      www.treskal.com/kalle