Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 03:06:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > +	if (!fdopen_lock_file(&lock->lk, "w"))
>> > +		return error("unable to fdopen %s: %s",
>> > +			     get_lock_file_path(&lock->lk), strerror(errno));
>> > +
>> > +	if (fprintf(get_lock_file_fp(&lock->lk), "ref: %s\n", target) < 0)
>> > +		return error("unable to fprintf %s: %s",
>> > +			     get_lock_file_path(&lock->lk), strerror(errno));
>>
>> error() is end-user facing, so "fprintf" is probably a bit too
>> precise?  "fprintf" -> "write to"
>>
>> Also we may want to make them (not just this new message but other
>> error() messages in related code paths) localizable but that is
>> probably beyond the scope of this topic.
>
> It only occurred to me now, but shouldn't we also support passing in a
> `struct strbuf *err` here? The transactional code doesn't want us to
> print error messages to `stderr`, but always supplies a buffer.
>
> Patrick

Yes I think that would fit better with the existing transaction code.