From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/4] Some cleanups Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:38:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20160330173837.GA20706@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1459357518-14913-1-git-send-email-sbeller@google.com> <20160330172538.GC19675@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Eric Sunshine , Junio C Hamano , "git@vger.kernel.org" To: Stefan Beller X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 30 19:38:45 2016 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 1alK4r-0006OG-5r for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:38:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753900AbcC3Ril (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:38:41 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:41012 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753142AbcC3Rik (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:38:40 -0400 Received: (qmail 11678 invoked by uid 102); 30 Mar 2016 17:38:39 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:38:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 5055 invoked by uid 107); 30 Mar 2016 17:38:39 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:38:39 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:38:37 -0400 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 Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:32:40AM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > > I'm OK with all of these as-is, though I did mention a nit in the third > > one. I also like Junio's rewrite instead of using strbuf_list_free. > > I'm fine using the rewritten version instead of using strbuf_list_free. :) > On the third one, there is one case, where we have > > if (..) > return error(_(text)); > > and that is an exit(128); eventually. In the caller perhaps, but isn't that equivalent to: error(_(text)); return -1; ? I think it is OK to make assumptions about error()'s return value; that is what it is there for. -Peff