From: René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 18:44:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] am: ignore return value of write_file()
Message-ID: <577FF48C.4030008@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1607080830430.6426@virtualbox>

Hi Dscho,

Am 08.07.2016 um 08:33 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016, René Scharfe wrote:
>> write_file() either returns 0 or dies, so there is no point in checking
>> its return value.
>
> The question is whether it makes sense for write_file() to die(). It is a
> library function and not every caller can be happy with that function to
> exit the program when some file could not be written, without a chance to
> tell the user what to do about the situation.
>
> If write_file() was defined in builtin/am.c, as a static function, I would
> grudgingly acquiesce, but it is not.
>
> IMO it would be better to fix write_file() to *not* die() but return
> error() instead.

there is write_file_gently() for that purpose, but it's used only by a 
single caller that exits on failure after all, and in fact Peff's series 
drops it.

So I think write_file() is fine, and it's rather a question of whether 
am should use write_file_gently() instead.  I don't see why, but perhaps 
that's because it's Friday..

René