[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [UDD] unexpected changes of values in table upstream

Hi Osamu,

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 11:24:09PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 01:38:46PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> ...
> > > It changed when a backport of devscripts >= 2.15.10 was installed on the
> > > QA systems.
> > 
> > Thanks for the very helpful explanation.  So if I would like to restore
> > the old behavior I would need to discuss the strings in a bug report
> > against uscan, right?  From my naive point of view the changes of the
> > strings is not a good idea (besides the side effect in UDD).  What do
> > others think?
> In retrospective for backport, string should have been kept if possible.

As Raphael said changing is not a good idea for several reasons.  My
additional point is that the strings become worse to understand.  Could
you give good reasons for the change?  If not, please revert it.
> In old code, error reporting had several irregularities which got
> cleaned up in new uscan.  This reorganization was quite extensive
> so I should have warned James when he started working on it.

I admit I'm quite happy about the new uscan - just those strings are
misunderstanding in themselves, sorry.
> Now uscan reports more detailed error analysis, please allow this new
> feature update which already happened.

The feature is fine - please *exactly* describe why the string

   'newer package available'

should be better than

   'Newer version available'

IMHO this is contextual wrong since there is no new package yet when
uscan is parsing a new version.
> > PS: I have changed the web sentinel to accept both strings, so from a
> >     Blends point of view this is should not be an issue any more.
> Thanks.

That's needed in any case since the time for discussing this and the
time a potentialy changed uscan might be installed on udd.d.o would last
to long with a broken output. 

Kind regards



Reply to: