On 15/11/17 18:44, Martin Ågren wrote:
On 15 November 2017 at 11:41, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Return an error instead of dying if the index cannot be locked in
do_recursive_merge() as if the commit cannot be picked it needs to be
rescheduled when performing an interactive rebase. If the pick is not
rescheduled and the user runs 'git rebase --continue' rather than 'git
rebase --abort' then the commit gets silently dropped.
Makes sense. (Your analysis, not the current behavior. ;-) )
Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
sequencer.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sequencer.c b/sequencer.c
index 6d027b06c8d8dc69b14d05752637a65aa121ab24..8c10442b84068d3fb7ec809ef1faa0203cb83e60 100644
--- a/sequencer.c
+++ b/sequencer.c
@@ -438,7 +438,8 @@ static int do_recursive_merge(struct commit *base, struct commit *next,
char **xopt;
static struct lock_file index_lock;
- hold_locked_index(&index_lock, LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR);
+ if (hold_locked_index(&index_lock, LOCK_REPORT_ON_ERROR))
+ return -1;
read_cache();
From the commit message, I would have expected the flags to be zero. This patch
does not only turn off the die-ing, it also tells the lockfile-API to print an
error message before returning. I don't have an opinion on whether that extra
verboseness is good or bad, but if it's wanted, I think the commit message
should mention this change.
Hi Martin, thanks for your comments. LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR also prints the
same warning so that behavior is unchanged by this patch, though
mentioning it in the commit message would be no bad thing.
Also, don't you want to check "< 0" rather than "!= 0"? If all goes
well, the return value will be a file descriptor. I think that it will
always be non-zero, so I think you'll always return -1 here.
Yes you're right, thanks. I thought I had tested this but I now realise
my so called test just fast-forwarded so didn't touch this code path
Best Wishes
Phillip
Martin
