Jeff King wrote: > Let me inject some more uncertainty, then. ;) > > If we are not going to do 3/3, then should 2/3 simply avoid passing "-1" > back via return from main? I guess I don't have a strong opinion, but > one of the things I noted was that we converted those die() calls > introduced in 2/3 back into returns in 3/3. Do we want to leave it in > the state where we are calling die() a lot more? Would you mind replying in the patch thread instead of this what's cooking email? That way, I can understand your suggestion better in context, I can find it more easily later, I would feel less bad about adding noise by replying, etc. Thanks, Jonathan
