Deleting code from goyaml

[Ian Booth]

Never believe what you read on IRC :-D

On 14/11/13 21:53, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
> I don't think the facts I brought up were clear, independently from
> what the MP does ("For the record ...").
> 
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Ian Booth <ian.booth at canonical.com> wrote:
>> There was no deleted code the the mp that I saw:
>>
>> https://code.launchpad.net/~dave-cheney/goyaml/goyaml/+merge/195162
>>
>> Dave may have been referring on irc to an earlier iteration of his work.
>> His approach was also discussed at the Juju team meeting, and unless I
>> mis-remember, there was broad approval of the approach taken.
>>
>> On 14/11/13 21:33, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
>>> <davecheney> wallyworld_: i fixed the bug, tests all pass
>>> <davecheney> by deleting code
>>> <davecheney> i'm not sure how gustavo will like that :)
>>> <wallyworld_> davecheney: ah, ok. good luck :-)
>>>
>>> For the record, please don't delete apparently unused logic from the
>>> *c.go files in goyaml, unless you went deep into the subject and
>>> justified accordingly in the proposal.
>>>
>>> There is certainly a non-trivial number of uncovered paths, because
>>> these files were ported from the C libyaml. For that reason, goyaml
>>> will definitely have uncovered paths, not only because we may be
>>> lacking paths, but also because we may be lacking the feature itself
>>> at the moment (for example, multi-document parsing). We should evolve
>>> towards having more tests and more of these features covered, instead
>>> of nuking the logic without proper analysis that it was unnecessary in
>>> C also.
>>>
>>>
>>> gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Juju-dev mailing list
>> Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> 
> 
>