From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King 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, 9 Dec 2014 13:49:45 -0500 Message-ID: <20141209184944.GA31158@peff.net> References: <20141204030133.GA16345@google.com> <20141204234147.GF16345@google.com> <20141204234432.GA29953@peff.net> <20141205000128.GA30048@peff.net> <20141207100755.GB22230@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Stefan Beller , Git Mailing List , Michael Haggerty To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Dec 09 19:49:53 2014 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 1XyPr6-0004Iq-Gm for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 19:49:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751500AbaLISts (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 13:49:48 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:50606 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751252AbaLISts (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 13:49:48 -0500 Received: (qmail 13158 invoked by uid 102); 9 Dec 2014 18:49:47 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 12:49:47 -0600 Received: (qmail 2685 invoked by uid 107); 9 Dec 2014 18:49:51 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 09 Dec 2014 13:49:51 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 09 Dec 2014 13:49:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:43:52AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Unless we can do something clever with a set of global error strbufs or > > something (i.e., that expand as needed, but the caller does not have to > > free themselves, as they will get recycled eventually). That has its own > > corner cases, though. > > I do share your concern that "strbuf"-approach calls for more > boilerplate leading to unmaintainable code, but I offhand do not > have a magic silver bullet for it. globals are indeed tempting, but > I'd have to say that what Jonathan has may probably be the least bad > of the possibilities. OK. I'm not sure I agree that it is the least bad, but I don't think it's worth arguing over more. Let's go with it, and you can note my objection in the captain's log. :) -Peff