Shubham Kanodia <shubham.kanodia10@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Hmph, is there a reason why you need two loops, instead of >> for-each-remote calling a function that does the run_command() >> thing? > > It can be collapsed into one. Sorry, but that is not an answer, as my question was not a suggestion to change anything. It was a question asking you if there was a specific reason why the code was structured the way it was written. If there is another way to write it, you need to answer why the alternative wasn't picked. >> This loop does not stop at the first error, but returns a non-zero >> error after noticing even a single remote fail to run prune, which >> sounds like a seneible design. Would an error percolate up the same >> way when two different tasks run and one of them fails in the >> control folow in "git maintenance"? Just want to see if we are >> being consistent with the surrounding code. > > Fair point. I'll make the process flow identical to the prefetch refs > task that works similarly across remotes. > It returns as soon as the first remote fails (without necessarily > affecting other tasks). ... and the first failure signals the caller a failure? That would match what you did in your new feature, which is perfect. Thanks.
