From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 17 17:16:57 2020 Received: (at 40643) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Apr 2020 21:16:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41816 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jPYM5-0000e6-Dj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:16:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57542) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jPYM4-0000dr-KP for 40643@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:16:56 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45949) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jPYLx-0007X7-6E; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:16:49 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=53580 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jPYLt-0003vD-UK; Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:16:47 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Jakub =?utf-8?B?S8SFZHppb8WCa2E=?= Subject: Re: [bug#40643] [PATCH] git-version: Handle invalid arguments gracefully References: <20200415151824.22988-1-kuba@kadziolka.net> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 23:16:44 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20200415151824.22988-1-kuba@kadziolka.net> ("Jakub \=\?utf-8\?B\?S8SFZHppb8WCa2EiJ3M\=\?\= message of "Wed, 15 Apr 2020 17:18:23 +0200") Message-ID: <87v9lx95j7.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40643 Cc: 40643@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) Hi Jakub, Jakub K=C4=85dzio=C5=82ka skribis: > * guix/git-download.scm (git-version): Add a check for commit ID length. > --- > If you're curious for the motivation, see [1]. This took a while to > debug, so I'm hoping to ease this for the next person who inevitably > stumbles upon this. Is a change like this okay? Yes, I think so. The =E2=80=98error=E2=80=99 procedure is not great, we wo= uld rather use =E2=80=98raise=E2=80=99 with a =E2=80=98&message=E2=80=99 condition (wh= ich additionally allows for i18n) but it=E2=80=99s no big deal here. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.