From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] bundle, fast-import: detect write failure Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:36:46 -0800 Message-ID: <7vejco4xv5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <874pdmhxha.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <87myrdhnn5.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <87hchlhm3k.fsf@rho.meyering.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git list To: Jim Meyering X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 11 08:37:29 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JDESE-0007Cv-UL for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:37:27 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754098AbYAKHg4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:36:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753242AbYAKHg4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:36:56 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:48633 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753168AbYAKHgz (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:36:55 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE9E4CEE; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:36:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4234CED; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:36:47 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87hchlhm3k.fsf@rho.meyering.net> (Jim Meyering's message of "Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:00:15 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jim Meyering writes: > On the other hand, if that write failure is truly ignorable, > a mindless minimalist :-) might argue that it's best just to > omit the syscall. Usually the contents of .keep file is a small one-line comment that describes who decided that the pack needs to be kept and why, so the answer is no. In this case, a failure while closing that small .keep file is highly unlikely, and if we ever mange to trigger such a highly unlikely failure, I think we would rather want to *know* about it, as it is likely there is something more seriously wrong going on. So let's keep that check on close().