Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I think we all agree that the early part of the new documentation >> text is good, but the last section that proposes to store more >> detailed errors in caller supplied strbuf in textual form was >> controversial (and I have not convinced myself it is a good idea >> yet). >> >> I could chuck the last section and then start merging the remainder >> to 'next' to salvage the "obviously good bits". Or do people want >> to hash its last section a bit more? > > Whether or not we decide on a different error-handling convention in the > future, it is a fact of life that a good bit of code already uses the > "strbuf" convention documented by Jonathan's patch. So I think it is OK > to merge it as is. If we change the preferred convention in the future, > one part of the change will be to update this file. I wasn't sure about "a good bit of code already", but that settles it. Let's take it as-is and see how the code evolves. Thanks. -- 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