Junio C Hamano, Tue, Apr 24, 2007 11:33:48 +0200:
>
> > ... Isn't such kind of resource control _generally_ nicer to implement
> > in the top levels of a program?
>
> In theory perhaps, but my understanding of our use of atexit()
> is to clean them up in situations beyond the control of the top
> levels of a program, most notably upon exit on signal.
>
struct git_context;
/* or whatever is the latest name for the repo bookeeping is.
It have to be passed to every git-related function anyway. */
struct lock_file *open_index_locked(struct git_context *, int die_on_error);
int commit_index_locked(struct git_context *, struct lock_file *);
... and so on.
Then let the top level call something like
git_cleanup(struct git_context *);
in its _own_ signal or atexit handlers. If it didn't setup the
handlers, than perhaps it did want it so (leaving tempfiles behind is
sometimes done on purpose). Or it _is_ a bug, but then it is clear:
you have to cleanup, and you do git's part of cleanup with
git_cleanup.
-
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