Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 14:58:59 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 244389] [libxo] procstat(1) --libxo=xml produces invalid markup Message-ID: <bug-244389-227-eKR4JjA1yH@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-244389-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-244389-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D244389 Phil Shafer <phil@freebsd.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |phil@freebsd.org --- Comment #1 from Phil Shafer <phil@freebsd.org> --- Yes, this is completely broken in a conceptual way. The tags in libxo shou= ld be thought of as "columns" in a database, not as data. Using a pid as the = tag here is wrong; it should be more like: ... <binary> <process> <pid>48700</pid> <command>zsh</command> ... The big question is: how do we manage changes to libxo-based encoding? If = we make this change (or other future changes), then there is a risk of breaking something that depends on it? How do we announce changes that are not backwards compatible? Do we just declare is a "bug" that we fix and announ= ce via release notes? Do we need to start using xo_version() calls? Do we enforce the use of xo_version at the first change? How do we arrive on a policy that we are all comfortable with? In this case, it's a obvious bug in XML, but folks using JSON might be depending on it, so it's a semi-perfect example. Thanks, Phil --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-244389-227-eKR4JjA1yH>