Junio C Hamano, Sun, Mar 02, 2008 17:59:13 +0100: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Alex Riesen wrote: > > > >> - add_file_to_cache(path, verbose); > >> + if (add_file_to_cache(path, verbose)) > >> + exit(1); > > > > Does it really, really _have_ to be exit(1)? I mean, now you block even > > the faintest chance that we can libify libgit.a by overriding die_routine. > > I think Alex did so not to break the existing scripts that rely on these > dying, but it should have been exit(128) to really stay compatible. Sorry, this time it was actually mostly accident. I just selected the first non-zero. > Why is this even needed to begin with? I am aware of Dirk's original > issue discussed elsewhere, but we try fairly hard to be A-O-N when we can > afford to, and this option deliberately breaks it. What is the real > reason why such an unreadable (either for privilege or for I/O error) > file should not live in .gitignore? Another program keeps the file open. There is an exclusive mode for opening files, which locks the files for everyone. I believe it is even default mode, unless selected otherwise. -- 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
