[Zope-dev] Re: [Checkins] SVN: zope.server/trunk/s fix of 599 error on conflict error in request

[Christian Theune]

Hi,

Dieter Maurer schrieb:
> Christian Theune wrote at 2008-2-4 13:23 +0100:
>> ...
>> +        # agroszer: 2008.feb.1.: currently the above seems not to be true
>> +        # request will KEEP the response on close()
>> +        # even more if a retry occurs in the publisher,
>> +        # the response will be LOST, so we must accept the returned request
>> +        request = publish(request)
>> +        return request.response.getResult()
>> Same comment as previously, please avoid this style of annotation.
> 
> I disagree with you.
> 
> Commenting difficult code passages which can easily be seen
> as overly complex if one does not look carefully is a *very* good
> idea.
> 
> Especially in this case, I find the explanation vital why
> "response" is recomputed rather than the already known "response" used.

I haven't been clear enough about what I meant with `style of annotation`.

IMHO this issue should have a bug number. The bug number should be 
annotated instead of a name and a date, stating the issue in short and 
making it possible to lookup discussion and proceeding of this bug in 
the tracker.

>> Also, 
>> it doesn't look like the issue is actually finally resolved as you say 
>> `seems`.
> 
> Better specify explicitely when one is not absolute sure.

That's what bugtracking is for.

>> SVN tracks who edited what and when, the statement of your name and the 
>> change date isn't necessary.
> 
> But when one looks at the code, it is not easy to find out which 
> SVN revision produced this code -- unless you look through the complete
> history.

svn (praise|blame) tells you by whom and in which revision a line of 
code was changed last time.

Christian

-- 
gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) - germany
www.gocept.com - ct at gocept.com - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development