Re: [PATCHv15 2/5] run_processes_parallel: add LF when caller is sloppy

Stefan Beller [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

The inconsistency may not hurt as long as (1) the producers of the
message will never stuff a NUL in the middle, and (2) strbuf always
has the guard NUL after its contents.  Even though we know that the
latter will hold true for the foreseeable future, it also is easy to
do the right thing here, too, so why not?

What is the right thing? I asked myself and obviously it is treating the
child->err the same in both cases of checking for a trailing LF and
when outputting.

But what is the right way to look at child->err? I would argue that
we should allow for children to have a NUL in its output stream and
replay their output as literal as possible.

i.e. my conclusion is to replace the fputs by fwrite as opposed to
using strlen to determine the length of string output.

Yup, that is what I meant; sorry if I were too oblique.

There are two fputs() that assumes there is no embedded NUL around
there, by the way.

Thanks.