From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp59.i.mail.ru (smtp59.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.39])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC4B946970E
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Tue, 28 Jan 2020 03:23:39 +0300 (MSK)
References: <3f49ddc14c2e07f4ac96fc71f3912fd0c5663882.1579032293.git.korablev@tarantool.org>
 <26c58292-4720-49b0-0770-6bafb559936f@tarantool.org>
 <20200127112337.GE1144@tarantool.org>
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <2807ea8a-9251-0191-3321-6c87a4c5bb09@tarantool.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 01:23:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200127112337.GE1144@tarantool.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] box: rfc for stacked diagnostic area
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

Hi! Thanks for the fixes!

It is not a second review. I just wanted to say that I am
going to spend less time on reviewes to the end of this
week due to intensive preparations to FOSDEM. I will get
back to this RFC as soon as I can, I didn't forget.

Just one comment for now, below.

>>> +* **Issues**: [#1148](https://github.com/tarantool/<repository\>/issues/1148)
>>> +
>>
>> 2. You missed 'Summary' section.
> 
> I believe it is redundant for such brief RFC. 
>  

Nevertheless, please, add it. If that RFC is so simpler,
then it should not be a problem to make it match the
RFC template. Template says:

    "Short description what, why and how is implemented."

So just say something like

    The document describes a stacked diagnostics feature. The
    feature is needed for the cases, when there is a complex and
    big callstack with different subsystems in it, and sometimes
    the most lowlevel error is not descriptive enough. So it is
    wanted to be able to look at errors along the whole callstack
    from the place where a first error happened. The feature
    implementation is going to change a fiber's error object to a
    list of objects, a stack. Its first element will always be
    created by the deepest and the most basic errors.

Or anything you think would be better here.