Re: RFC: error codes on exit

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 22, 2021, 21:22 UTC
Message-ID: <60a976221c390_857e920812@natae.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqfsyfqhkq.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:
> 
> > On 5/21/21 9:53 AM, Alex Henrie wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:40 PM Felipe Contreras
> >> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It's good to not include many initial codes, but I would start with at
> >>> least three:
> >>>
> >>>    OK = 0,
> >>>    UNKNOWN = 1,
> >>>    NORMAL = 2,
> >> If you go that route, could you please pick a word other than
> >> "normal"
> >> to describe errors that are not entirely unexpected? I'm worried that
> >> someone will see "normal" and use it instead of "OK" to indicate
> >> success.
> >> 
> >
> > <sysexits.h>
> 
> Is the value assignment standardized across systems?

I think his intention was to suggest to use that list as inspiration... As in have USAGE, NOINPUT, UNAVAILABE, etc.

I would prefer to start with something easy... UNKNOWN = 1, USUAL = 2.

-- 
Felipe Contreras