On Mon, 28 May 2007, Jim Meyering wrote: > > Um... maybe you've forgotten that this patch fixes a hole in the > "old code" (git.c). Many git tools ignore write (ENOSPC) failures. Maybe you have not noticed, but my argument has ben about EPIPE. > Compared to that aspect of the fix, I would have thought EPIPE- > handling would be a minor detail. But now, the whole patch has > become "crap"? About half the patch was _removing_ EPIPE stuff - not at all about the ENOSPC stuff you claim. And the ENOSPC code could have added the same *correct* code that does the right thing for EPIPE. > 1) Continue to ignore EPIPE write failure: can obscure real errors. > BTW, Linus, don't you agree? You never commented on this point. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'VE BEEN COMMENTING ON! They aren't "obscure real errors". EPIPE is neither obscure _nor_ an error. The code-paths where you removed EPIPE handlign have two cases: - SIGPIPE happens: you made no change - SIGPIPE diesn't happen: you broke the code. So remind me again, why the hell do you think your patch is so great and so important, considering that it broke real code, and made things worse? And why don't you just admit that EPIPE is special, isn't an error, and shouldn't be complained about? If you get EPIPE on the write, it means "the other end didn't care". It does NOT mean "I should now do a really annoying message". It's that simple. You seem to admit that SIGPIPE handling in bash should have been fixed, and that it was annoying to complain about it there. Why can't you just admit that it's annoyign and wrong to complain about the same thing when it's EPIPE? Linus - 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
