>>
>>> 0003--BUILD-Allow-trace-per-component.patch <- This patch allows
tracing
>>> per component
>>
>> Nack. Requiring a file doesn't make sense. Just add --enable-trace-ini,
>> --enable-trace-collection etc. flags.
> This is exactly what I did not like to do and tried to avoid. It is more
> code on the configure script, more checks and less convenient to turn on
> and off becuase you can run the same configure command with one switch
> enabled from history and do "touch trace" & "rm trace" as
needed in the
> directory you need.
> Saves a lot of typing for me :-)
> If you do not like the patch I will have to keep it as private patch as
> it is more convenient for me during development than the flags.
I still vote nack, as I don't like the approach.
So this is the dead lock becuase I like the approach and do not like
yours. How we are going to resolve it?
>>> 0005--INI-New-merge-flags.patch
>> I don't much like the idea of having flags that have overlapping bits
>> without an obvious reason (0x0020 and 0x0030, for example), but since
>> those are pre-existing, I'll leave them alone. Ack.
> Can you please elaborate becuase I designed the whole set of flags to be
> overlapping on purpose.
> There are three ranges that address three use cases:
> 1) Flags that define how to merge values that are encountered within the
> same section
> [section]
> a=1
> a=2
> 2) Flags that define how to merge values that are in a section that is
> segmented
> [section]
> a=1
> ...
> [section]
> a=2
> 3) Flags that define how to merge sections
> But all three are related (especially case 2 & 3) so it makes sense to
> pass them in one variable
> But if there are some concerns or I am missing something please explain.
#define INI_MV1S_OVERWRITE 0x0000
#define INI_MV1S_ERROR 0x0001
#define INI_MV1S_PRESERVE 0x0002
#define INI_MV1S_ALLOW 0x0003
#define INI_MV1S_DETECT 0x0004
I don't like that on a bitwise compare, if you do:
var = INI_MV1S_ALLOW;
then
if (var & INI_MV1S_ERROR) {
}
would be true. This isn't how flags are supposed to work. You're using
these more like an enum. It would be better to define them as such (and
not call them "flags" if that's what you're trying to do.
Calling them flags implies that you would expect to be able to do:
var = INI_MV1S_OVERWRITE | INI_MV1S_OVERWRITE;
And have both of those be active.
I view it differently. Within the range they are mutually exclusive but
they are flags since I expect it to be used in a following way:
var = INI_MS_MERGE | INI_MV1S_OVERWRITE | INI_MV2S_OVERWRITE;
Do you have a better way of accomplishing what I am trying to do?
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list
sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
--
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal
Sr. Engineering Manager IPA project,
Red Hat Inc.
-------------------------------
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/