Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] tla 1.2.2rc1 doesn't accept {arch}/=partner-versions file.

[Aaron Bentley]

Jan Hudec wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 14:35:12 -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
>
> > If so, the error message should be more explicit.
> >
> > Err, how?  All I know is that the .id file is useless.   I don't know why.
>
>
> Yes, you do:

No, I don't.  I can second-guess the inventory alorithm with greater or 
lesser accuracy, but it will inevitably produce false results.  The 
original explicit id test used second-guessing, and it failed in at 
least 3 ways:

1. it accepted .id files that had a corresponding directory (directories 
use =id files, not .id)
2. it accepted .id files that had a corresponding non-source file
3. it accepted .id files for files that had an automatic id.

If I had written the kind of test you're proposing, it would not have 
caught 3, because I never imagined that condition.  What other 
conditions might we have forgotten about?

And for how how long will our second-guesses be accurate?

> If corresponding id does not exist in the inventory, then look at the
> corresponding file. That file is:
> - some other category than source:
>     Then the error should say:
>     invalid explicit id for a <category> file <file>

I think you're forgetting that this is not an error message, it's a 
tree-lint report.  It categorizes all the problem files in the tree, and 
lists them by category.  The above would add 4 new categories:

id-for-precious, id-for-backup, id-for-junk, id-for-unrecognized

I really think four categories is excessive.

> - it is source, but has different tag:
>     Then the error should say:
>     invalid explicit id for <file>, which has automatic tag
>     (Are there any other tags generated befor explicit ones? I don't
>     think so.)

This message would be produced if there is a corresponding directory. 
It's the wrong message for that case, because most directories don't 
have automatic ids.

> - does not exist
>     Then the error should say:
>     invalit explicit id for non-existent file <file>.
>
> And in all cases it should mention tla delete as a way to get rid of the
> problem, of course.

It's far more robust to say: "The following explicit id files aren't 
used, so they don't belong in the tree.  Use delete-id to remove them." 
 It's simple, it's true, and it requires no guesswork.

Aaron

--
Aaron Bentley
Director of Technology
Panometrics, Inc.