From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77271F5AE for ; Sat, 22 May 2021 21:31:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231390AbhEVVcy (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 May 2021 17:32:54 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.136]:59545 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231379AbhEVVcx (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 May 2021 17:32:53 -0400 Received: from [IPv6:2601:646:8602:8be1:7cda:30c5:4c66:daab] ([IPv6:2601:646:8602:8be1:7cda:30c5:4c66:daab]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zytor.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 14MLTmlq441520 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 22 May 2021 14:29:49 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.zytor.com 14MLTmlq441520 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zytor.com; s=2021042801; t=1621718989; bh=ZMID+ZD9wDW7iKPOW1HGVwyI3grYXwTsFKcy49Sv3ts=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:CC:From:From; b=IGAOAz0KMXzl/Ba0Vinh3DJ+jJLG58gRwRi7kiN9sLzIxH3Gp94SmYHQl00SB0nrL bYWR1Lh/Hhi+zNFYO9b4uJx7Xc0MQFNQZf+g1mpqbauHN0Spa+4XC63+lSeT3QFTbB RBYFMxxe6MkVxULJf6DJIde237KgWyhkO3P3IZJXSdjXarmpYVqYjq7ybRQG7yZ0nA qzq2DpgS5MR+773tjFuodOldVPo/CdInKaTUcoEBzMptUR9V/hNp2ioL6QS4GaCMYo 6Qcmk5w7Q/3HJY98/8I+ZPkguD0H8dO0XXeWtmhrfwxLD3RTr2zzXCgw8JSjFOpClX CCV2xEsSb4znw== Date: Sat, 22 May 2021 14:29:39 -0700 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <60a976221c390_857e920812@natae.notmuch> References: <60a5afeeb13b4_1d8f2208a5@natae.notmuch> <60a976221c390_857e920812@natae.notmuch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: RFC: error codes on exit To: Felipe Contreras , Junio C Hamano CC: Alex Henrie , Jonathan Nieder , Git mailing list , Josh Steadmon , Jeff King , Jeff Hostetler From: "H. Peter Anvin" Message-ID: <3C6468D1-3E14-4600-BC8E-86CCCB84E74C@zytor.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org No, please use the standardized numbers when they apply=2E On May 22, 2021 2:22:42 PM PDT, Felipe Contreras wrote: >Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "H=2E Peter Anvin" writes: >>=20 >> > On 5/21/21 9:53 AM, Alex Henrie wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 6:40 PM Felipe Contreras >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> It's good to not include many initial codes, but I would start >with at >> >>> least three: >> >>> >> >>> OK =3D 0, >> >>> UNKNOWN =3D 1, >> >>> NORMAL =3D 2, >> >> If you go that route, could you please pick a word other than >> >> "normal" >> >> to describe errors that are not entirely unexpected? I'm worried >that >> >> someone will see "normal" and use it instead of "OK" to indicate >> >> success=2E >> >>=20 >> > >> > >>=20 >> Is the value assignment standardized across systems? > >I think his intention was to suggest to use that list as inspiration=2E= =2E=2E >As in have USAGE, NOINPUT, UNAVAILABE, etc=2E > >I would prefer to start with something easy=2E=2E=2E UNKNOWN =3D 1, USUAL= =3D 2=2E --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E