Re: [PATCH/RFC] doc: document error handling functions and conventions (Re: [PATCH 03/14] copy_fd: pass error message back through a strbuf)

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 4, 2014, 23:37 UTC
Message-ID: <20141204233738.GE16345@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy4qnq9m2.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Hi,

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

>> Here's a draft for documentation on that.
>
> Thanks; looks reasonable; even if the discussion between you and
> Peff took us to a slightly different direction than what you
> described here, the earlier description of long established practice
> is a welcome addition.

Thanks.

Can you say more? I didn't think the discussion had reached a conclusion yet.

Unless there's a strong reason to do otherwise, I prefer to stick with the strbufs in this series for now. I prefer strbuf for this purpose over char[1024]. And switching later doesn't seem hard.

But if others prefer char[1024], I can update the existing code that uses strbuf from the transaction API to use that and reroll this series with that convention. A part of me dislikes that but I'll go along.

Jonathan