Re: [PATCH 1/4] usage.c: add a die_message() routine

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

It also makes readers wonder why this is not

	exit(die_message(err, params));

which I take it a sign that this new API is overly loose to allow a
simple single thing to be done in multiple ways.  Perhaps as the
series progresses, the picture might improve, but if that is the
case, perhaps the presentation order needs to be rethought.
E.g. start without the _builtin that implies override-ability,
convert the existing code that can benefit from calling die_message(),
and then finally introduce _builtin that is merely an implementation
detail, or something like that, perhaps?

In any case, the first step in this four patch series is not enough
to evaluate if this step makes sense, so let's keep reading.

OK, it is the other way around.  This step with _builtin is
incomplete introduction of the API, even though it was "we add the
new API function without having any meaningful callers, because
combining them together into a single patch is too much to chew in a
single sitting".  A small part of 2/4 that adds the override-able
die_message_routine should be part of this step to make this step
understandable.

THanks.