Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jul 2016, #03; Fri, 8)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jul 10, 2016, 04:45 UTC
Message-ID: <20160710044529.GA10777@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20160710034736.GA19151@dcvr.yhbt.net>

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 03:47:36AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> > There was one minor improvement I suggested[1] (and which you seemed to
> > like), which is to push the errno check into the function. That wasn't
> > expressed in patch form, though, so I've included below a version of
> > your patch with my suggestion squashed in.
> 
> Yes, I'm fine with either, but I'm slightly thrown off by
> a function relying on errno being set by the caller, even if it
> is errno.  So maybe localizing it is better (see below)

Yeah, I had a similar reservation, but didn't want to clutter the interface. However, just passing errno isn't too bad (as you showed below), and is much less magical.

Do you want to squash that and re-send the whole patch to make Junio's life easier?

Show 7 quoted lines

> > Since both conditionals just call "continue", you could actually fold
> > them into a single if() in each caller, but I think it's easier to
> > follow as two separate ones.
> > 
> > You could actually fold the t
> 
> Copy-paste error?

Nope, just typing error while revising. :)

-Peff