On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 08:45:22AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > The obvious quick fix is to sprinkle more error() into the reftable > > code. But in the longer term, I think the right direction is that the > > ref code should accept an error strbuf or similar mechanism to propagate > > human-readable error test to the caller. > > Agreed, I think it's good that the reftable library itself does not > print error messages. In this particular case we are already able to > provide a proper error message due to the error code that the library > returns. But there are certainly going to be other cases where it might > make sense to pass in an error strbuf. Oh, if there is an error code you can use already, that is even better. :) Thanks for taking care of this case. -Peff
