From: Karl Hasselström Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:29:24 GMT Subject: Re: stgit restrictions on patch names 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: > 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