pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Retiring libpcp Errors

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Brolley <brolley@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Retiring libpcp Errors
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 18:41:03 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <416b3e0a-77d2-784f-8d90-7f3d40701952@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5797C005.5070507@xxxxxxxxxx> <416b3e0a-77d2-784f-8d90-7f3d40701952@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: dO618QA1uWGByTxj+Oj15Hd+gu7xZQ==
Thread-topic: Retiring libpcp Errors

----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> In the absence of a policy, I'd suggest that the "grace" period varies
> from none to infinity depending on how visible the error code was to any
> apps outside PCP code base that were using the PMAPI.  In the case
> you're referring to, I think this tends towards the "none" end of the scale.

+1 ... noone's ever going to be affected by this code; I recommend using the
same pmapi.h handling as was done for PM_ERR_FILE, PM_ERR_NOASCII, etc Dave.

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>