Hi, On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Olivier Marin wrote: > Johannes Schindelin a écrit : > > > > No, I think that the information about stale branches and if the > > branches are up-to-date is missing. In that sense, it is not like > > "route -n" at all, which just skips one convenience step, but really a > > dry run, because the result is different (as opposed to differently > > displayed). > > Am I wrong if I say that dry run is for commands that modify something? > For example there is no "diff --dry-run" probably because diff does not > change anything. A dry run has no real meaning for diff. For me, a dry run is something that avoids the high-cost operations. Something like, uhm, a dry run of a ship. > >> In fact, it seems that get_ref_states() always return 0 or just die > >> when an error occur. And that transport_get_remote_refs() never > >> return if something goes wrong. > >> > >> So, what about removing got_states and use !no_query instead ? > > > > Hrmpf. I did not mean to die() there... > > I don't understand. Is it ok or not? I would not like to remove the got_states. I think this is the wrong direction. Rather change the die() into a return error(). Ciao, Dscho
