Alex Riesen, Wed, Nov 14, 2007 20:45:22 +0100: > Johannes Schindelin, Wed, Nov 14, 2007 18:10:25 +0100: > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Alex Riesen wrote: > > > Junio C Hamano, Wed, Nov 14, 2007 01:02:20 +0100: > > > > Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > > > Ignore exit code of git push in t5404, as it is not relevant for the > > > > > test > > > > > > > > This proposed log message solicits a "Huh? -- Since when ignoring exit > > > > code is an improvement?" reaction. If this push is expected to error > > > > out, then wouldn't you want to make sure it errors out as expected? > > > > If the problem is that the exit status is unreliable, maybe we need to > > > > make it reliable instead? > > > > > > Well, it is kind of undefined. git push just updated some remote > > > references and failed on the others. It has had some failures, so it > > > returns non-0. And as I said, it really is not about the operation, but > > > about if the tracking and remote branches are set as we want them. > > > > If you know it should fail, why not make the test dependent on that > > failure? I mean, should git-push have a bug and not fail, it would be > > nice to catch this early... > > > > Well, I do not know it _should_ fail. Personally, I would not even > care: I see no way to cover with just one exit code multiple > failures. Some references were updated and I don't even know which. > So I'd better check whatever exit code. "I'd better check whatever was updated and damn the exit code" - 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
