Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] Handle errors when setting configs

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2016, 18:55 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqsi1gi5af.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160129082036.GA8591@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> The end result is roughly the same, but it's a lot less churn, and it's
> more likely for new callers to get it right, because they have to go the
> extra mile to ignore the error. I say "roughly" because it treats cases
> we missed as "die", whereas yours leaves them as "ignore". I find it
> highly unlikely that any of them actually _want_ the ignore behavior,
> though.

Yes, I like this approach better. It admittedly is more risky in that it would die if the conversion missed a case that should ignore, but I suspect that such a breakage would be found rather quickly (and the one that goes latent are the ones that do not matter in practice because people would not encounter them).

Show 9 quoted lines

> I'm just pondering, though. I don't find the "or_die" variant bad at
> all, so if you really prefer it, I don't mind.
>
> Just to get a sense of what the reverse would look like, I worked up the
> patch below (which compiles but does not link, as I did not actually
> implement the "gently" form). Some error-checking call-sites are
> converted to the "die" form, because that's essentially what happens
> anyway (and I'd venture to say that the config code can provide a much
> better error message).

This variant certainly looks nicer to me, for the reasons give above.