From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] doc: document error handling functions and conventions (Re: [PATCH 03/14] copy_fd: pass error message back through a strbuf) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 08:03:00 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20141203050217.GJ6527@google.com> <20141203051344.GM6527@google.com> <20141204030133.GA16345@google.com> <20141204234147.GF16345@google.com> <20141204234432.GA29953@peff.net> <20141205000128.GA30048@peff.net> <20141207100755.GB22230@peff.net> <54E3632F.20907@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Git Mailing List , Jeff King , Jonathan Nieder , Stefan Beller To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 17 17:03:15 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YNkcB-0002Wo-AX for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:03:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751825AbbBQQDF (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:03:05 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.35]:51895 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750800AbbBQQDD (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:03:03 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1EF0374F5; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:03:02 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=5yeHCMCr+hMr/i0h2VEIh9Jqlz8=; b=RHITbz +T0rGjaeLJfqgXPF/lVQCOk/NOZYzw2LdF9rgN4Nd+I1JiWI1Qk7g4thR5LjxKyd pLHWKNHo3BtgLNO/e3Ed8mIbs6Ik729UQcIj+GUJHLdA6Iae7L8K/rfAVuOFZX4D 2UUHy9ssjHP0lCHiyFMQxFW0EYirUfPjpbJQs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=MK7xF0vKhe0l4pH6suj6t4f6U5rRadFs PJzIBTavDPM1YnuLJmGtFdRlrGFYHNVb9EKKlqitdq0aP0M973H9tvu4uyIlQu+3 Cr4o/QqhtP+asVv/rG0urbp/cXApNOqxe0tLy0EG+a3/LXHsGTmY8gwHphpd7wKm 5ZCuMvDESsM= Received: from pb-smtp1.int.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82DB374F4; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:03:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [72.14.226.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DA16374F3; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:03:02 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <54E3632F.20907@alum.mit.edu> (Michael Haggerty's message of "Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:50:07 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 733D7CB8-B6BE-11E4-937C-A4119F42C9D4-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Michael Haggerty writes: >> I think we all agree that the early part of the new documentation >> text is good, but the last section that proposes to store more >> detailed errors in caller supplied strbuf in textual form was >> controversial (and I have not convinced myself it is a good idea >> yet). >> >> I could chuck the last section and then start merging the remainder >> to 'next' to salvage the "obviously good bits". Or do people want >> to hash its last section a bit more? > > Whether or not we decide on a different error-handling convention in the > future, it is a fact of life that a good bit of code already uses the > "strbuf" convention documented by Jonathan's patch. So I think it is OK > to merge it as is. If we change the preferred convention in the future, > one part of the change will be to update this file. I wasn't sure about "a good bit of code already", but that settles it. Let's take it as-is and see how the code evolves. Thanks.