Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Add a bug() function that works like error() except the message is > prefixed with "bug:" instead of "error:". > > The reason this is needed is for e.g. the fsck code. If we encounter > what we'd consider a BUG() in the middle of fsck traversal we'd still > like to try as hard as possible to go past that object and complete > the fsck, instead of hard dying. A follow-up commit will introduce > such a use in object-file.c. Reading the description above, i.e. "to go past that object", the assumed use case seems to be to deal with a data error, not a program bug (which is where we use BUG()---e.g. one helper function in the fsck code detected that the caller wasn't careful enough to vet the data it has and called it with incoherent data). If we find a tree entry whose mode bits implies that the object recorded in the entry ought to be a blob, and later find out that the object turns out to be a tree, that is a corrupt repository and the code that detected is not buggy (and we shouldn't use BUG(), of course). So, ... I am skeptical. If the code is prepared to handle breakage, we would not want to die, but then I am not sure why it has to be different from error().
