Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Testing the new behaviour is a good idea. I also agree with you >> that die() would be more appropriate and does not risk regression, >> if the original behaviour was to segfault. > > Indeed. I changed it due to your upthread > <xmqqsg0anxix.fsf@gitster.g>. > > I think doing s/warning/die/ here makes sense, but similarly to the > above comment: Let's punt on that and do it separately from this > narrow segfault fix. If and when we change that we should change > various other "warning()" around this codepath to "die()" as well. I do not think that can be thrown into the same bin as "should UI give irrelevant details?" issue. If you make it not to segfault and give just a warning(), it becomes impossible to make it die() later. If we all agree that die() is a better action, that must be done now, or it will become never once the change is released to the field.
