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

From: Jonathan Nieder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:37:38 -0800

Hi,

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder <[email-masked]> 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.

Thanks.

Can you say more?  I didn't think the discussion had reached a
conclusion yet.

Unless there's a strong reason to do otherwise, I prefer to stick with
the strbufs in this series for now.  I prefer strbuf for this purpose
over char[1024].  And switching later doesn't seem hard.

But if others prefer char[1024], I can update the existing code that
uses strbuf from the transaction API to use that and reroll this
series with that convention.  A part of me dislikes that but I'll go
along.

Jonathan