4 ms·
Failing silently should no be an option. This is a case where the best is enemy of the good. The patch is good, albeit not optimal. Hanging on to a bad solution
by sergiosgc 12y ago
Failing silently should no be an option. This is a case where the best is enemy of the good. The patch is good, albeit not optimal. Hanging on to a bad solution, in presence of a good solution, because you can imagine an optimal solution was a bad call.
The patch should log a warning/error and avoid the crash. It does not preempt an optimal solution, by traversing the file tree, being developed afterwards.
- x0x0 12y agoloud suicide rather than quiet misbehavior (nobody reads logs until someone notices something wrong) is often preferred, at least for distributed systems.
- MaulingMonkey 12y ago> Failing silently should no be an option. In this case, by my standards, it already is. Some relatively unrelated bit of code is later failing loudly. > This is a case where the best is enemy of the good. Neither best nor good happened in this case - so I'd flip your terms around. The best of intentions and standards prevented good. > The patch should log a warning/error and avoid the crash. It does not preempt an optimal solution, by traversing the file tree, being developed afterwards. On this we can agree wholeheartedly. That'd be a great followup changelist in lieu of doing the optimal solution, assuming the latter is too time consuming.