Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> Just a side-question unrelated to this patch per-se, why do we have both
> x*() and *_or_die() functions in the codebase? I can't find any pattern
> for one or the other.
My understanding is that x*() were meant for system library
functions.
Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 7:49 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> wrote:
>> Just a side-question unrelated to this patch per-se, why do we have both
>> x*() and *_or_die() functions in the codebase?
>
> I wondered about that myself shortly after suggesting
>
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 16 2018, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> A common pattern with the repo_read_index function is to die if the return
>> of repo_read_index is negative. Move this pattern into a function.
This was done
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 7:49 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 16 2018, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> A common pattern with the repo_read_index function is to die if the return
>> of repo_read_index is negative. Move this pattern into a function.
>
> Just a
On Wed, May 16 2018, Stefan Beller wrote:
> A common pattern with the repo_read_index function is to die if the return
> of repo_read_index is negative. Move this pattern into a function.
Just a side-question unrelated to this patch per-se, why do we have both
x*() and *_or_die() functions in
5 matches
Mail list logo