Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[OSR] Exceptionless error management
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: michaelgrunewald@y...
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] Exceptionless error management
Bünzli Daniel <daniel.buenzli@erratique.ch> writes:

> Le 5 févr. 08 à 11:12, Vincent Hanquez a écrit :
>
>> looking at the page, I find a proposal (beginning), and a lots of
>> people
>> disaggreeing at the end.
>
> I agree with this I think it should be moved to a "rejected proposals"
> section. When I find some time I will add a preamble explaining why it
> was rejected.

Although it did not meet a consensus, the proposal might still be
useful. Developpers should be able to claim at the beginning of a file
or in their projet's documentation:

 ``We adhere to conventions described in PAPER, regarding
   exceptionless error reporting.''

The benefit from doing so, is that it helps having coherent code
(users can report that parts of the code break proposal, etc.).

So ``rejected proposals'' sounds a bit pessimistic to me, we could
have four sections (or even more):
 1. proposals (for discussion);
 2. recommendations (proposals that met a large success);
 3. options (proposals that did not met a large success, or are not
      intended for large audience, but are still a useful reference
      because they are adhered to in some code);
 4. attic (proposals that do not fit in the first three, maybe because
    they have been rejected).

(The vote mechanism should then only apply to publications in 2.)

By the way the title of your proposal is informative about the problem
you are giving a possible answer, but it do not give a word about the
solution. I think it should, beacuse discussion on the page show that
there exist(?) other strategies than the one you describe.
-- 
All the best,
Michaël