From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] write_or_die: remove the unused write_or_whine() function Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 20:01:07 -0400 Message-ID: <20160610000107.GA25874@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <5759F326.9080101@ramsayjones.plus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , GIT Mailing-list To: Ramsay Jones X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 10 02:01:16 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 1bB9sx-00089w-6n for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 02:01:15 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752123AbcFJABL (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 20:01:11 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:52210 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751016AbcFJABL (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 20:01:11 -0400 Received: (qmail 9564 invoked by uid 102); 10 Jun 2016 00:01:10 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 20:01:10 -0400 Received: (qmail 28837 invoked by uid 107); 10 Jun 2016 00:01:20 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 09 Jun 2016 20:01:20 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 09 Jun 2016 20:01:07 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5759F326.9080101@ramsayjones.plus.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:52:22PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones > --- > > Hi Junio, > > Commit f0bca72d ("send-pack: use buffered I/O to talk to pack-objects", > 08-06-2016) removed the last use of write_or_whine(). I had intended to > include this 'commit citation' in the commit message, but until it reaches > the next branch, I don't know how stable that information will be. > > Anyway, on reflection, the subject line says everything that needs to be > said. However, you need to know which commit this one depends on. ;-) IMHO, it's a good idea for removal patches to reflect on why the thing is appropriate to remove. Obviously there are no callers, but do we expect any to come back? I think probably not, because this function is doing very little that a regular if() does not besides obfuscating the error message (and if we ever did want something like it, we would probably prefer the function to come back with more "normal" return value semantics). -Peff