diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'tickets/b6df8a5d7d3d4b7e8c2ddf8c95cfc33d/Maildir/new/1455999000.M301296P17339Q104.exolobe1')
| -rw-r--r-- | tickets/b6df8a5d7d3d4b7e8c2ddf8c95cfc33d/Maildir/new/1455999000.M301296P17339Q104.exolobe1 | 142 |
1 files changed, 142 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/tickets/b6df8a5d7d3d4b7e8c2ddf8c95cfc33d/Maildir/new/1455999000.M301296P17339Q104.exolobe1 b/tickets/b6df8a5d7d3d4b7e8c2ddf8c95cfc33d/Maildir/new/1455999000.M301296P17339Q104.exolobe1 new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a2ead32 --- /dev/null +++ b/tickets/b6df8a5d7d3d4b7e8c2ddf8c95cfc33d/Maildir/new/1455999000.M301296P17339Q104.exolobe1 @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +Return-Path: <obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org> +X-Original-To: distix@pieni.net +Delivered-To: distix@pieni.net +Received: from bagpuss.pepperfish.net (bagpuss.pepperfish.net [148.251.8.16]) + (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by pieni.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C58A02D9DB + for <distix@pieni.net>; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:40:13 +0200 (CEST) +Received: from platypus.pepperfish.net (unknown [10.112.100.20]) + by bagpuss.pepperfish.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C787256; + Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:40:13 +0100 (BST) +Received: from ip6-localhost ([::1] helo=platypus.pepperfish.net) + by platypus.pepperfish.net with esmtp (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian)) + id 1ZlCAv-0005VY-6u; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:40:13 +0100 +Received: from inmail0 ([10.112.100.10] helo=mx0.pepperfish.net) + by platypus.pepperfish.net with esmtp (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian)) + id 1ZlCAt-0005VE-6f + for <obnam-dev@obnam.org>; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:40:11 +0100 +Received: from pieni.net ([95.142.166.37] ident=postfix) + by mx0.pepperfish.net with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) + (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <liw@liw.fi>) id 1ZlCAr-0005tD-7J + for obnam-dev@obnam.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:40:11 +0100 +Received: from exolobe1.liw.fi (82-181-8-107.bb.dnainternet.fi [82.181.8.107]) + (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by pieni.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C1642D9C1; + Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:40:03 +0200 (CEST) +Received: from exolobe1.liw.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by exolobe1.liw.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95D314084D; + Sun, 11 Oct 2015 11:40:02 +0300 (EEST) +Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 11:40:01 +0300 +From: Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> +To: Lars Kruse <lists@sumpfralle.de> +Message-ID: <20151011084001.GN2384@exolobe1.liw.fi> +References: <1441948936-12526-1-git-send-email-mathstuf@gmail.com> + <1443159474-27126-1-git-send-email-mathstuf@gmail.com> + <1443159474-27126-2-git-send-email-mathstuf@gmail.com> + <20150925131218.50af1dcd@erker.lan> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 +Content-Disposition: inline +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit +In-Reply-To: <20150925131218.50af1dcd@erker.lan> +User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) +X-Spam-Score: -3.4 +X-Spam-Score-int: -33 +X-Spam-Bar: --- +X-Scanned-By: pepperfish.net, Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:40:11 +0100 +X-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-3.4 points) + pts rule name description + ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- + -1.0 PPF_USER_AGENT_MUTT User-Agent: contains Mutt (Mutt isn't a spam + tool) -0.5 PPF_USER_AGENT User-Agent: exists + -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% + [score: 0.0000] +X-ACL-Warn: message may be spam +X-Scan-Signature: 78c34a7242bc3b0cdb4980a2406d4978 +Cc: obnam-dev@obnam.org +Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] encryption: refactor _gpg_pipe to use _gpg +X-BeenThere: obnam-dev@obnam.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Obnam development discussions <obnam-dev-obnam.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org>, + <mailto:obnam-dev-request@obnam.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/pipermail/obnam-dev-obnam.org> +List-Post: <mailto:obnam-dev@obnam.org> +List-Help: <mailto:obnam-dev-request@obnam.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org>, + <mailto:obnam-dev-request@obnam.org?subject=subscribe> +Sender: obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org +Errors-To: obnam-dev-bounces@obnam.org + +On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 01:12:18PM +0200, Lars Kruse wrote: +> Hi Ben, +> +> I appreciate the configurable gpg keyring directory without using +> GNUPGHOME as introduced by your patch! +> +> Even though I do not really feel entitled to comment on your patch, +> I feel the urge to ask a question. +> +> The following lines contain a catch-all except expression: +> +> + try: +> + out = _gpg(args + ['--passphrase-fd', str(keypipe[0])], stdin=data) +> + except: # pragma: no cover +> + ... +> +> As far as I understand the code of "_gpg", I would expect only OSError +> exceptions. Wouldn't it be sufficient to catch only this one? +> (catching things like NameError can be very confusing) + +Catching every type of exception with a bare "except:" is, in fact, +usually a mistake. It means that if there is a NameError or, in +extreme cases, a SyntaxError (in dynamically loaded code), it gets +caught. However, in a few special cases, it's still OK, and in this +case it's OK. The special case in this instance is this pattern: + + try: + do_something() + except: + do_cleanup_that_must_always_be_done() + raise + +The last line is important. It re-raises the original exception as if +there was ny try/except. The cleanup gets done anyway, and in Ben's +code it closes a file descriptior, and that needs to be done +regardless of what the error was. Otherwise, if upper layers of the +code catch the exception and continues running the program, the file +descriptor leaks and if this happens often enough, it results in the +process not being able to open new files. + +So I'm OK with this part of the code. (Haven't looked in detail the +rest, yet.) + +An example of a bare "except:" that I don't approve of: + + try: + do_some_input_output(foo) + except: + sys.stdout.write("Write error!!!!!!!\n" + sys.exit(1) + +In this case, the error message can be entirely wrong about the reason +of the error. If the variable foo doesn't exist, or has the wrong +type, or the function has the wrong number of arguments, or any other +such reason, the exception thrown is not because there was a write +error. The user will be confused. Worse, the programmer trying to +debug this will be confused. + +I now fully expect people to start pointing out places in my own code +where I've done that. That'd be good. + +-- +Schrödinger's backup hypothesis: the condition of any backup is +undefined until a restore is attempted. -- andrewsh + +_______________________________________________ +obnam-dev mailing list +obnam-dev@obnam.org +http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/obnam-dev-obnam.org |