Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> --- a/send-pack.c
>>> +++ b/send-pack.c
>>> @@ -36,18 +36,15 @@ int option_parse_push_signed(const struct option *opt,
>>> die("bad %s argument: %s", opt->long_name, arg);
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static int feed_object(const unsigned char *sha1, int fd, int negative)
>>> +static void feed_object(const unsigned char *sha1, FILE *fh, int negative)
>>> {
>>> - char buf[42];
>>> -
>>> if (negative && !has_sha1_file(sha1))
>>> - return 1;
>>> + return;
>> [...]
>>> @@ -97,21 +95,22 @@ static int pack_objects(int fd, struct ref *refs, struct sha1_array *extra, stru
>> [...]
>>> for (i = 0; i < extra->nr; i++)
>>> - if (!feed_object(extra->sha1[i], po.in, 1))
>>> - break;
>>> + feed_object(extra->sha1[i], po_in, 1);
>>
>> I may have missed the obvious, but doesn't this change the behavior when
>> "negative && !has_sha1_file(sha1)" happens? I understand that you don't
>> need write_or_whine anymore, but don't understand how you get rid of the
>> "return 1" here.
>
> The original feed_object() has somewhat strange interface in that a
> non-zero return from it is "Everything went alright!", and zero
> means "Oops, something went wrong".
Indeed, this is the "obvious" I've missed. So, indeed, the new "return"
does the same thing as the old "return 1".
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
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