On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:40:12AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > There's discussion elsewhere[1] of applying just up to patch 2. > > > > Do we still want to convert these cases to die() as their end-state? > > IMHO yes, we do. die() is the function that you can use to exit with > a fatal error. > > If we want to get rid of die(), that would be a tree-wide effort, not > something that should hold up this patch. But that was sort of my question. I think there are people who _do_ want to get rid of most die() calls (like Dscho), and there is a tree-wide effort that is happening slowly to lib-ify. Your patch goes in the opposite direction. That said, I think there are actually two cases in your patch. The calls to "return error()" or even just "return -1" in cmd_gc() seem like obvious candidates for die(). We're at the top of the stack, and anybody lib-ifying at that level is going to need to extract bits into reusable functions anyway. I more wondered about helpers like report_last_gc_error() and gc_before_repack(). > > It also makes the code more flexible and lib-ifiable (since the caller > > can decide how to handle the errors). That probably doesn't matter much > > since this is all static-local to builtin/gc.c, > > Exactly. I'm a strong believer in http://wiki.c2.com/?YouArentGonnaNeedIt. I only half-agree that this is YAGNI. If it were "let's punt on making this code friendlier to lib-ification", I'd agree more completely. But it's actually taking an active step in the opposite direction. I dunno. It's probably not worth spending too much more time discussing, and I'm OK either way. I mostly just wanted to raise the issue since dropping patch 3 changes the balance to me. -Peff
