* Jeff King (peff@xxxxxxxx) [100205 14:56]:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:34:22PM -0500, Larry D'Anna wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/builtin-send-pack.c b/builtin-send-pack.c
> > index 76c7206..dfd7470 100644
> > --- a/builtin-send-pack.c
> > +++ b/builtin-send-pack.c
> > @@ -478,6 +478,11 @@ int send_pack(struct send_pack_args *args,
> > return ret;
> > for (ref = remote_refs; ref; ref = ref->next) {
> > switch (ref->status) {
> > + case REF_STATUS_REJECT_NONFASTFORWARD:
> > + case REF_STATUS_REJECT_NODELETE:
> > + if (args->porcelain && args->dry_run)
> > + break;
> > + return -1;
> > case REF_STATUS_NONE:
> > case REF_STATUS_UPTODATE:
> > case REF_STATUS_OK:
>
> Why just these two status flags? Based on your reasoning elsewhere, I
> would assume the logic should be:
>
> - if we had some transport-related error, return failure
>
> - if not, then return success, as any ref's failure is already
> indicated in the porcelain output
>
> So shouldn't it just be:
>
> if (args->porcelain && args->dry_run)
> return 0;
>
> after we check for transport errors but before the loop that you are
> modifying.
I don't know what the deal is with REF_STATUS_EXPECTING_REPORT, so I didn't want
to modify the behavior in the case that ref->status was that. What does
expecting report mean?
--larry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html