From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9911E207BC for ; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 18:53:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1424150AbdDUSxs (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:53:48 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:37878 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1424131AbdDUSxo (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:53:44 -0400 Received: (qmail 7938 invoked by uid 109); 21 Apr 2017 17:07:03 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:07:03 +0000 Received: (qmail 17668 invoked by uid 111); 21 Apr 2017 17:07:27 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:07:27 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:07:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:07:00 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Duy Nguyen Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] Handle fopen() errors Message-ID: <20170421170700.qyjtrvew54u2epue@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170420112609.26089-1-pclouds@gmail.com> <20170421062915.he5tlgjqq7kj5h32@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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-level) quiet flag. I don't think it's too bad here. Isn't it just: FILE *fh = quiet ? fopen(x, y) : fopen_or_warn(x, y); It is a little annoying to have to repeat "x", though (which is sometimes a git_path() invocation). -Peff