Jeff King writes:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 07:27:20PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> > Yes, but (1) we'd need to be careful about --quiet
>>
>> Yeah. It's a real pain point for making changes like this. At some
>> point we should just ha
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 07:27:20PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Yes, but (1) we'd need to be careful about --quiet
>
> Yeah. It's a real pain point for making changes like this. At some
> point we should just have a global (maybe multi-lev
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Yes, but (1) we'd need to be careful about --quiet
Yeah. It's a real pain point for making changes like this. At some
point we should just have a global (maybe multi-level) quiet flag.
--
Duy
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>>
>> I had a similar thought while reading through it. I think it would be
>> shorter still with:
>>
>> FILE *fopen_or_warn(const char *path, const char *mode)
>> {
>> FILE *fh = fo
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 08:41:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Junio C Hamano writes:
>>
>> > I wonder if it is OK to only special case ENOENT for !fp cases,
>> > where existing code silently returns. Perhaps it is trying to read
>> > an
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 08:41:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano writes:
>
> > I wonder if it is OK to only special case ENOENT for !fp cases,
> > where existing code silently returns. Perhaps it is trying to read
> > an optional file, and it returns silently because lack of it
Junio C Hamano writes:
> I wonder if it is OK to only special case ENOENT for !fp cases,
> where existing code silently returns. Perhaps it is trying to read
> an optional file, and it returns silently because lack of it is
> perfectly OK for the purpose of the code. Are there cases where
> thi
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes:
> Some of you may recall a while back, nd/conditional-config-include
> failed on Windows because I accidentally fopen()'d a directory in a
> test, but it's not considered an serious error unless it's on Windows,
> where fopen() returns NULL.
>
> A couple of suggestio
Some of you may recall a while back, nd/conditional-config-include
failed on Windows because I accidentally fopen()'d a directory in a
test, but it's not considered an serious error unless it's on Windows,
where fopen() returns NULL.
A couple of suggestions were thrown back and forth, but I was a
9 matches
Mail list logo