Re: [PATCH 17/18] revert: Don't implictly stomp pending sequencer operation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> [...]
>> +             if (create_seq_dir() < 0) {
>> +                     advise(_("A cherry-pick or revert is in progress."));
>> +                     advise(_("Use --reset to forget about it"));
>> +                     return -1;
>> +             }
>
> The usual formula is:
>
>        error(... description of error ...)
>        if (advice_foo_bar [i.e., if the user is not tired of the advice already]) {
>                advise(... how to recover from error ...);
>                advise(... more lines ...);
>        }

I think you're trying to say two things here:
1. Put the error() call in the caller.  Why is this a good idea?  The
error is very specific to the create_seq_dir functionality, and has
nothing to do with the caller.  The advice on the other hand, can be
quite caller-specific, which is why I put it in the caller in the
first place.
2. Guard the advice using a variable.  I have to invent a new
configuration variable; can't that wait*?

Thanks.

* Ideally, I'd do these things immediately if I didn't fear picking a
stupid variable name, and implementing it in a daft manner the first
few times.  More delays will result in me doing less post midterm work
(the more interesting bits).

-- Ram
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]