On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:11:38AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Subject: [PATCH] copy.c: make copy_fd() report its status silently > > When copy_fd() function encounters errors, it emits error messages > itself, which makes it impossible for callers to take responsibility > for reporting errors, especially when they want to ignore certaion > errors. > > Move the error reporting to its callers in preparation. > [...] Looks good to me. And thank you for being thorough in analyzing the impact on all the callers. > - hold_lock_file_for_append(), when told to die on error, used to > exit(128) relying on the error message from copy_fd(), but now it > does its own die() instead. Note that the callers that do not > pass LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR need to be adjusted for this change, but > fortunately there is none ;-) Not related to your patch, but I've often wondered if we can just get rid of hold_lock_file_for_append. There's exactly one caller, and I think it is doing the wrong thing. It is add_to_alternates_file(), but shouldn't it probably read the existing lines to make sure it is not adding a duplicate? IOW, I think hold_lock_file_for_append is a fundamentally bad interface, because almost nobody truly wants to _just_ append. And I have not investigated it carefully, but I suspect that we do not even have to be that careful. The only time we write the file is during clone, and I suspect we could just use a string_list, and then write it out. We probably don't even need to lock (it's not like we take a lock before creating the "objects" directory in the first place). Anyway, end mini-rant. It is probably not hurting anyone and does not need to be dealt with anytime soon. -Peff -- 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