From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:10 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv15 2/5] run_processes_parallel: add LF when caller is sloppy
Message-ID: <xmqqtwkxsszl.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kYv-dKMnON=Hj2fUNEbUXz=8ti3x3tNG2WxWmdr5CA2tA@mail.gmail.com>

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> The inconsistency may not hurt as long as (1) the producers of the
>> message will never stuff a NUL in the middle, and (2) strbuf always
>> has the guard NUL after its contents.  Even though we know that the
>> latter will hold true for the foreseeable future, it also is easy to
>> do the right thing here, too, so why not?
>
> What is the right thing? I asked myself and obviously it is treating the
> child->err the same in both cases of checking for a trailing LF and
> when outputting.
>
> But what is the right way to look at child->err? I would argue that
> we should allow for children to have a NUL in its output stream and
> replay their output as literal as possible.
>
> i.e. my conclusion is to replace the fputs by fwrite as opposed to
> using strlen to determine the length of string output.

Yup, that is what I meant; sorry if I were too oblique.

There are two fputs() that assumes there is no embedded NUL around
there, by the way.

Thanks.