[RFC] Allow error definitions outside bzrlib.errors?

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Bennetts <andrew.bennetts at canonical.com> writes:

    Andrew> Martin Pool wrote:
    >> 2009/8/11 Vincent Ladeuil <v.ladeuil+lp at free.fr>:
    >> > Right, but the proposal is still to defined such errors as
    >> > inheriting from BzrError right ?
    >> >
    >> > So the payoff will only be when we clean bzrlib.errors from the
    >> > specific errors than can be declared in modules.
    >> >
    >> > I'd really prefer that we keep *some* errors defined there if
    >> > only the generic ones.
    >> 
    >> As I see it: general errors in bzrlib.errors; module-specific or
    >> related errors in that module; everything inheriting from BzrError
    >> unless there's a good reason otherwise.

    Andrew> Yes, that's what I was thinking too.

Great, just wanted to be sure we all agree,

       Vincent