On 11/01/2012 10:17 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > That's easily readable, but I don't like it: it's a funny mixture of styles. > We should choose either "notification" style (that is, messages that are not > error messages), such as > > * Verified revision 0. > * Verified revision 1. > * Verified revision 2. > * Error verifying revision 3: Missing node-id in node-rev at r3 (offset 787) > * Error verifying revision 4: zlib (uncompress): corrupt data: Decompression > of svndiff data failed > * Verified revision 5. > > or "error messages" style, in which case the messages should be formatted > like all svn err msgs, for example: > > * Verified revision 0. > * Verified revision 1. > * Verified revision 2. > svnadmin: E199999: Error verifying revision 3 > svnadmin: E160004: Missing node-id in node-rev at r3 (offset 787) > svnadmin: E199999: Error verifying revision 4 > svnadmin: E140001: zlib (uncompress): corrupt data: Decompression of svndiff > data failed > * Verified revision 5.
Agreed. And for what it's worth, I like the second form, especially if the errorful lines go to stderr. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
