From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikita Karetnikov Subject: Re: New =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98--list-generations=E2=80=99?= and =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98--delete-generations=E2=80=99?= options Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 01:14:57 +0400 Message-ID: <87fvtjdl7y.fsf@karetnikov.org> References: <87vc2o4qwc.fsf@gnu.org> <87y57kljro.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87hae81uvo.fsf@gnu.org> <87bo4fcbcz.fsf@karetnikov.org> <878uzj6nev.fsf@gnu.org> <877gf1yftq.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87bo4dspl2.fsf@gnu.org> <87a9jxeh05.fsf@gnu.org> <87r4d9r2lv.fsf@gnu.org> <874na4jfp4.fsf_-_@karetnikov.org> <87eh97616m.fsf@gnu.org> <87bo48xdgb.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87hadz9gze.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37536) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VHgp0-00061h-AM for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 17:10:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VHgoy-00085K-Q7 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 17:10:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87hadz9gze.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Thu, 05 Sep 2013 22:00:05 +0200") List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > BTW, what did you think of the idea of using recutils format as the > output? (Either as the sole output format, or otherwise as a secondary > format.) I like the idea. It=E2=80=99s always better to use a documented format, especially when it comes with a mode for Emacs. And don=E2=80=99t forget t= hat =E2=80=98--search=E2=80=99 already uses recutils. I didn=E2=80=99t say any= thing before because I haven=E2=80=99t tried to implement this part yet. >> Do you see any problems? Please check everything (especially the >> =E2=80=98first-month=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98last-month=E2=80=99 functions= ). > Better yet: write test cases. :-) I have some tests, but you have to modify =E2=80=98int=E2=80=99 and the oth= er related procedures to use them. So it=E2=80=99s not an option. I=E2=80=99m also not sure what=E2=80=99s the best way to test the =E2=80=98= first-month=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98last-month=E2=80=99 functions (the validation part). Any ideas? > The code otherwise looks OK, but disentangling parsing from validation > will make it even more pleasant IMO. I agree. I just haven=E2=80=99t found a way that avoids unnecessary repeti= tion. (I=E2=80=99ll comment on other issues later.) Could you share your thoughts on other things that are marked with =E2=80=9CXXX=E2=80=9D? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSKPRUAAoJEM+IQzI9IQ38NDUP/A8KKa/NHUkhoGGnxkqJefCa C4ule/hMSvIXPsqvRJJ7sSJiNax4iqDikoBAgXTQqVgD6VI9ZIEnpVhG86X2UkuW PZUo40TrNo8QtL2++P/vTTN2LMGgqYN8J3MX4G2yozC3F3gKGeFHslREjKuSduHX ebRrlQVJYPLEIBrrFfIOh3vg8nNlU7jm4O5DG9P4SlWEz/jwOHK9pLhWxrRyov9x 48nW+zfSmsJ6tWLrGrTQO6MB7U/uW7zIBZDk8T2Vtl8rf+5bYu7J6R/K1mwRFMbk v79hMYv7C9YJKQTFYvRaNk1FZFfStD0ODaVXJLDn+Ui9/ytbb7p3FCFhAFdSkEue 6iR2lwf0p9Hv/9kw3QZIVp6B2vGMcAEZt+DkfhhwIYcMq4/8bWRbRYGn1X2iTBQG VCPk1jDJ8JtBG/JKL2UbQRMQVepveZUCcB1H29SmCJmA9Cdgm/ApMe411Qxud/Z7 qIwXR22v98VVioyfbc858+LeDa3nalLvzkvzUA0sO/33TJTkqFYMAkg40NlMnqoc 92TAMeG0noKgPMKr76a+/Dwh24UfuBolFbueaSBH8TLtKXf7aPHFTdANeGK+pEzd YWWPPamoiCUquBTVWfuqNw6kdH7VoKifRjpmO/D74aDY8jT1wWYYovNjs2APn2f+ SRLnKAW2cc9wJQOlCK/c =Oudf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--