From: Larry D'Anna <larry@elder-gods.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:13:13 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] git-push: make git push --dry-run --porcelain exit with status 0 even if updates will be rejected
Message-ID: <20100210041313.GA21516@cthulhu>
In-Reply-To: <7vtytqyrlk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

* Junio C Hamano (gitster@pobox.com) [100209 17:25]:
> Larry D'Anna <larry@elder-gods.org> writes:
> 
> > @@ -1052,7 +1053,7 @@ int transport_push(struct transport *transport,
> >  			flags & TRANSPORT_PUSH_FORCE);
> >  
> >  		ret = transport->push_refs(transport, remote_refs, flags);
> > -		err = push_had_errors(remote_refs);
> > +		err = (pretend && porcelain) ? 0 : push_had_errors(remote_refs);
> 
> Hmph, you are doing (rewritten in an easier to follow format)
> 
> 	if (--dry-run && --porcelain)
> 		err = 0;
> 	else
> 		err = push_add_errors(remote_refs);
> 
> here, which I think changes the semantics of what follows immediately
> after this hunk, namely:
> 
> 	if (!quiet || err)
> 		print_push_status(transport->url, remote_refs,
> 				verbose | porcelain, porcelain,
> 				nonfastforward);
> 
> Earlier, the logic said "even if you asked for --quiet, we would report if
> there is an error" but now you are changing the rule to "under --dry-run
> and --porcelain, --quiet means don't ever report the status, even when
> there are errors".
> 
> I don't necessarily think it is a bad change, but in any case the semantic
> change is worth documenting.

Now that you point it out, I can't really think of any reason why this patch
ought to mess with the semantics of --quiet.  

      --larry