From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A89BC6C for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:46:01 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAJ4CqUfAXQImh2dsb2JhbACBWY5ZAQEBCAopgRWcFA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,311,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="7691220" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2008 09:46:01 +0100 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m168k0ud025882 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:46:01 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAFsCqUfUGyojimdsb2JhbACBWY5ZAQEBCAQGBwoRB4EVnBQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,311,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="8838401" Received: from smtp5-g19.free.fr ([212.27.42.35]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2008 09:46:00 +0100 Received: from smtp5-g19.free.fr (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0D73F61CA; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:46:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from Llea.celt.neu (ron34-3-82-236-236-194.fbx.proxad.net [82.236.236.194]) by smtp5-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5D13F618D; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:45:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from Llea.celt.neu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Llea.celt.neu (8.14.2/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m168jinw001120; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:45:44 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from michaelgrunewald@yahoo.fr) Received: (from michael@localhost) by Llea.celt.neu (8.14.2/8.13.8/Submit) id m168jhrt001119; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:45:43 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from michaelgrunewald@yahoo.fr) X-Authentication-Warning: Llea.celt.neu: michael set sender to michaelgrunewald@yahoo.fr using -f To: =?iso-8859-15?Q?B=FCnzli?= Daniel Cc: caml-list List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] Exceptionless error management References: <1202205644.6226.5.camel@Blefuscu> <20080205101221.GA3922@snarc.org> <9A13D5E1-E455-4019-B0BA-D8D7DD4CE49E@erratique.ch> From: michaelgrunewald@yahoo.fr (=?iso-8859-15?Q?Micha=EBl_Gr=FCnewald?=) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:45:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: <9A13D5E1-E455-4019-B0BA-D8D7DD4CE49E@erratique.ch> (=?iso-8859-15?Q?=22B=FCnzli?= Daniel"'s message of "Tue\, 5 Feb 2008 11\:26\:00 +0100") Message-ID: <86zluexyko.fsf@Llea.celt.neu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 47A973C8.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; bunzli:01 buenzli:01 developpers:01 caml-list:01 writes:01 conventions:02 daniel:04 daniel:04 consensus:04 proposals:05 proposals:05 problem:05 ecrit:06 coherent:06 discussion:06 B=FCnzli Daniel writes: > Le 5 f=E9vr. 08 =E0 11:12, Vincent Hanquez a =E9crit : > >> 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. --=20 All the best, Micha=EBl