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, 17 Feb 2015 11:05:24 -0500 Message-ID: <20150217160524.GA11186@peff.net> References: <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; charset=utf-8 Cc: Michael Haggerty , Git Mailing List , Jonathan Nieder , Stefan Beller To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 17 17:05:32 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 1YNkeR-0003XP-Gr for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:05:31 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752034AbbBQQF1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:05:27 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:49906 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751713AbbBQQF1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:05:27 -0500 Received: (qmail 31649 invoked by uid 102); 17 Feb 2015 16:05:26 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:05:26 -0600 Received: (qmail 8604 invoked by uid 107); 17 Feb 2015 16:05:34 -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, 17 Feb 2015 11:05:34 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:05:24 -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, Feb 17, 2015 at 08:03:00AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > 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. I'm not convinced myself after a quick grep. But it's certainly non-zero, and I think I would rather have the technique documented than not, so I withdraw my earlier complaints. -Peff