[PATCH 2/7] ldb:ldbdel tool - use LDB result constants for consistency

[Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer]

Simo,

can you live with my decision?

Cheers,
Matthias

Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
> Okay Simo,
>
> I've updated the patchset in my private repo (branch ldb_tools):
> - I'm now returning "-1" on generic errors - where a LDB error does 
> not really fit. As an exception I've left the "ldbedit" tool since the 
> conversion to LDB errors there is very complicated
> - Otherwise the LDB error code is returned
>
> Cheers,
> Matthias
>
> simo wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 17:37 +0100, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>>> Yeah simo,
>>>
>>> I agree. But which method do you prefer? "-1" or LDB errors?
>>>
>>> Then, after this has been cleared I'm willing to rework my patches to
>>> comply with the decision.
>> Given it has been inconsistent for more than a year now, I have no
>> preference, unless someone is depending on the return value in some
>> scripts, like automatic testing.
>>
>> If nobody is depending on it then I would be ok with returning LDB error
>> codes
>>
>> Simo.
>>
>
>