On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:10:27PM +0100, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: >> >>> While reviewing some patches for Git for Windows, I realized that >>> we almost never check the return-value from setenv. This can lead >>> to quite surprising errors in unusual sitations. Mostly, an error >>> would probably be preferred. So here we go. >>> >>> However, I'm not at all convinced myself that all of these make >>> sense; in particular settings like GIT_EDITOR and GIT_PAGER could >>> perhaps benefit from having a warning printed rather than a hard >>> error. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> I wrote almost the same patch once[1], but failed to actually push it >> through to acceptance. > > In both cases, the patches are _designed_ to fail to attract any > attention. Your earlier one had this preamble: > > Here is a patch. I still feel a little silly writing this. The chances > that you will run out of memory doing setenv but _not_ doing any of the > other git operations seems very low. > > which rather *loudly* says "ignore me, please!" ;-) > > Erik's patch this round is no better; if its log message said something > like "On platform X, the environment space is merely nKB and setenv has > much higher chance of failing than on typical Linux boxes", it would have > been a no brainer for me to respond with "makes perfect sense but don't we > also use putenv?" immediately. > It could be because I treated this completely like a theoretical patch; I haven't seen it actually happen. But you are right, Windows 32 kB environment limit makes this much more likely than your average Linux box. So perhaps I should add a notice about that in the next round... -- 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