Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> Anyway, my opinion in the message you are responding to was that the >> exit status of the pager subprocess wait_for_pager_atexit() finds >> does not matter, and there is no reason to overly complicate the >> implementation like the comments in Ævar's [v2 5/5] implies, and it >> is sufficient to just hide the fact in wait_for_pager_signal() that >> we got SIGPIPE. I am not sure if you are agreeing with me, or are >> showing me where/why I was wrong. > > We are agreeing that the SIGPIPE should not be reported. > > We may be disagreeing whether it is good or bad that git's exit code is > overridden by the pager's exit code, which Ævar wanted to implement, > IIUC. I think that is reasonable and I base my opinion on the comparison > with the pipeline `git log | less`, where git's exit code is ignored. I guess we are then in agreement---I do think it makes sense to send the true exit code from the pager as the exit code from the pager to the trace output, which is what the early part of Ævar's patch does, but I do not think the exit code of the pager should affect the exit code from "git log" as a whole.
