On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 13:52 +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
> I got the impression that what is being requested is an identifying
> error number for each error message that Exim generates. And a document
> that allows you to look up the number and find an explanation for the
> error. Back in the days when we were running IBM mainframes, the IBM
> software used to do this. Great in theory. In practice, the
> documentation is either out-of-date, or tells you something bland like
> "probable user error". Maybe today, with web pages an wikis it would be
> better, as long as enough effort is put into maintaining it. But
> maintaining documentation is hard work, and I am an old cynic.
Its an approach to internationalisation - emit messages no one
understands.
It would be possible to make the CVS scripts refuse an error code
checkin without the code->text table having an entry for that code.
Of course that leads to
999 Really bad error of some sort
entries
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
