[PATCH 2/7] ldb:ldbdel tool - use LDB result constants for consistency
Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer
mdw at samba.org
Fri Feb 4 11:09:15 MST 2011
Simo,
you mean on each return/exit "-1" case LDB_ERR_OPERATIONS_ERROR? Do I
understand it correctly?
Cheers,
Matthias
simo wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 08:54 +0100, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>
>> Simo,
>>
>> can you live with my decision?
>>
> Why -1, and not simply LDB_ERR_OPERATIONS_ERROR ?
>
> Simo.
>
>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list