On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:15:55AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > This all looks good to me. The topics-in-flight compatibility stuff in > > patches 3 and 5 is neatly done. Usually I would just cheat and change > > the order of arguments to make the compiler notice such problems, but > > that's hard to do here because of the varargs (you cannot just bump > > "flags" to the end). > > Actually, I think my compatibility stuff is worthless. It would not > catch new callers that wants to only probe and do their own error > handling by passing 0 (and besides, assert() is a shoddy way to do > this---there is no guarantee that tests will trigger all the > codepaths in the first place).
Oh, hrm, you're right. I was focused on making sure the common 1-passers were not broken, but patch 3 does break 0-passers (obviously, because they needed updated in the same patch ;) ). And I do agree that build-time assertions are much better than run-time ones. > We should deprecate and remove write_file() by renaming the one with > the updated semantics to something else, possibly with a backward > compatiblity thin wrapper around it that is called write_file(), or > without it to force a link-time error. That sounds reasonable. Maybe "format_to_file" or something? -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
