From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 23:52:45 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] doc: document error handling functions and conventions (Re: [PATCH 03/14] copy_fd: pass error message back through a strbuf) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20141204234432.GA29953@peff.net> Yeah, that is what I meant. The earlier part will not go to waste no matter what happens to the discussion. I am not a fan of char[1024], if only because our error message may have to mention things whose length is not under our control, e.g. a filename in the working tree, but I do share your concern that "strbuf"-approach calls for more boilerplate. I offhand do not have a magic silver bullet for it, though. On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:41:47PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > >> Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > Jonathan Nieder writes: >> >> >> 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. >> >> I think I see what I misunderstood. Do you mean "even if we settle on >> a different API, this documentation of what you started with should be >> easy to adapt and will make life easier"? >> >> In other words, did you mean to say that things are still up in the >> air (which I agree with) or that the project has already settled on a >> different direction (which I do not)? > > FWIW, that is how I read it (up in the air), and where I thought our > discussion was. > > -Peff