On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 00:27, William Pursell <bill.pursell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:25, William Pursell <bill.pursell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Here's a patch. This doesn't address the issue of a damaged >>>> repository, but just catches access errors and permissions. >>> The change looks fishy. >>> >>> The patch moves the function is_git_directory at the level of user >>> interface where it wasn't before: it now complains and die. >>> Not all callers of the function call it only to die if it fails. >> >> Thanks for shooting it down before I had to look at it ;-) > > The point of the patch is that it now complains and dies. At wrong point. Points, actually. There are many callers of the function you modified. You should have looked at them all. > Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but can you describe a situation > in which this causes git to terminate inappropriately? Maybe. BTW, can you? (if you try, I mean). But your questions misses the point of my complaint about your patch: The patch makes the function you modified act not as one can guess from its other uses. Imagine someone replaced open(2) implementation to kill your program everytime you tried to open /etc/passwd. How'd you like that? That alone is reason enough to dislike the change and put you personally into a list of persons to be careful with (as you don't seem to care about what happens with the code after you changed it). -- 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