Re: [PATCH/RFC] doc: document error handling functions and conventions (Re: [PATCH 03/14] copy_fd: pass error message back through a strbuf)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2015, 16:03 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq1tlo4jbf.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <54E3632F.20907@alum.mit.edu>

Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:

Show 15 quoted lines

>> I think we all agree that the early part of the new documentation
>> text is good, but the last section that proposes to store more
>> detailed errors in caller supplied strbuf in textual form was
>> controversial (and I have not convinced myself it is a good idea
>> yet).
>> 
>> I could chuck the last section and then start merging the remainder
>> to 'next' to salvage the "obviously good bits".  Or do people want
>> to hash its last section a bit more?
>
> Whether or not we decide on a different error-handling convention in the
> future, it is a fact of life that a good bit of code already uses the
> "strbuf" convention documented by Jonathan's patch. So I think it is OK
> to merge it as is. If we change the preferred convention in the future,
> one part of the change will be to update this file.

I wasn't sure about "a good bit of code already", but that settles it. Let's take it as-is and see how the code evolves.

Thanks.