David Reiss wrote:
> The old behavior just said that it failed. Now it includes the error
> information, which makes it much easier to debug.
>
> There is a risk that some failure paths could result in misleading error
> messages that actually make debugging more difficult.
[...]
> if (write_cache(fd, active_cache, active_nr) ||
> close_lock_file(&index_lock))
> - die("unable to write new_index file");
> + die("unable to write new_index file: %s", strerror(errno));
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Don't we have die_errno() or something since at least 1.6.4?
Yes. And during the conversion, I ignored call sites like this one
precisely because I did not (and still do not) have enough knowledge
of the index and lock file machinery to decide at what stage I need to
read errno to get the *real* error message. You're of course welcome
to dig into the code to verify that the above is correct, but I am
against blindly hoping that it gives the right error.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.