Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > It also makes readers wonder why this is not > > exit(die_message(err, params)); > > which I take it a sign that this new API is overly loose to allow a > simple single thing to be done in multiple ways. Perhaps as the > series progresses, the picture might improve, but if that is the > case, perhaps the presentation order needs to be rethought. > E.g. start without the _builtin that implies override-ability, > convert the existing code that can benefit from calling die_message(), > and then finally introduce _builtin that is merely an implementation > detail, or something like that, perhaps? > > In any case, the first step in this four patch series is not enough > to evaluate if this step makes sense, so let's keep reading. OK, it is the other way around. This step with _builtin is incomplete introduction of the API, even though it was "we add the new API function without having any meaningful callers, because combining them together into a single patch is too much to chew in a single sitting". A small part of 2/4 that adds the override-able die_message_routine should be part of this step to make this step understandable. THanks.
