Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Brown-bag fix on top of js/mingw-inherit-only-std-handles

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > But the intention is not to help correct callers! The purpose of mapping
> > `ERROR_SUCCESS` to 0 will help _only_ callers that try to report an error
> > when none happened. On Windows, which is the only platform where the
> > discussed function is compiled and used, `strerror(0)` has the
> > well-established behavior of returning "No error".
>
> But is the caller that ends up saying "No error" you mention below
> by calling strerror() exists *only* on Windows port somewhere in
> compat/ directory?  If the call to strerror() is made from a
> codepath that is common to all platforms, then that caller *is*
> wrong to do so after seeing *no* errors.

> So, no, sorry, but I do not understand the above line of reasoning.
>
> > Now imagine that a user encounters a bug where a code path does indeed
> > incorrectly report an error where no error occurred (or where Git is
> > looking for the error too late or something like that). You probably agree
> > with me that we should really avoid reporting "Function not implemented"
> > in such a case and rather say "No error", which will help figure out the
> > bug much quicker.
>
> Not really.  A BUG() that catches a call to this function that
> should not be called when there is no error would help identify the
> problematic caller a lot faster by being louder---those users who
> get hit will raise their hands more readily than those who see "No
> error" and wonders "why does Git give that error message when there
> is no error?".  IOW, "No error" sounds like sweeping the issue under
> the rug.

> The argument could be "I do not want to be pressured to hunt for the
> problematic caller, and taking the approach to be less loud than the
> BUG() approach would allow the end users keep operating as if
> nothing bad happened, so that I can hunt for the caller iff/when I
> feel like it, and with no urgent need I can just ignore the hunt
> altogether.  Not hitting with BUG() is a service to the end users
> who shouldn't be made a guinea pig---that is why we want to sweep
> the problematic caller under the rug.  It may delay the discovery
> and fixing of problematic callers, which is a downside, though."
>
> I would understand such an argument, even if I might not think that
> such an argument makes the right tradeoff between not hitting the
> users with BUG() and not being effective in finding the problematic
> caller.
>
> Thanks.
>
>