Hi Junio, On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > Note: the code now calls merge_recursive_generic() again. Unlike > > merge_trees() and merge_recursive(), this function returns 0 upon success, > > as most of Git's functions. Therefore, the error value -1 naturally is > > handled correctly, and we do not have to take care of it specifically. > > I've finished reading through up to this point and I'd stop for > now. If you want, I can break out the subsequent patches into a separate series. I just thought that you might want to have them here, as I implemented them in response to the concern you raised in a previous iteration of the same patch series: you pointed out that returning a negative error value still does not let the caller handle the error message, and with the subsequent patches that is now possible, too. > Some of the patches I didn't look beyond the context presented in > the patches, so it is very possible that I missed leaks caused by > early returns and things like that, but I didn't see anything > glaringly wrong. Looks very promising. Thanks. I did try my best to catch all resource leaks, but I did stare at those patches so often and so long that it is easy for some obvious bug to have slipped by. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you (or somebody as diligent as you) could have a careful look in particular at the "merge-recursive: switch to returning errors instead of dying" patch. I may have missed something as stupid as an unclosed file handle, after all. Thank you, Dscho -- 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