Re: [PATCH 1/2] Allow callers of unpack_trees() to handle failure
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Dec 3, 2007, 06:24 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7v63zgqorw.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712030032400.5349@iabervon.org>
Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:
Show 23 quoted lines
> Return an error from unpack_trees() instead of calling die(), and exit > with an error in read-tree. The merge function can return negative to > abort. > > This will be used in builtin-checkout -m. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> > --- > builtin-read-tree.c | 3 +- > unpack-trees.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- > 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/builtin-read-tree.c b/builtin-read-tree.c > index 43cd56a..4f680c3 100644 > --- a/builtin-read-tree.c > +++ b/builtin-read-tree.c > @@ -269,7 +269,8 @@ int cmd_read_tree(int argc, const char **argv, const char *unused_prefix) > parse_tree(tree); > init_tree_desc(t+i, tree->buffer, tree->size); > } > - unpack_trees(nr_trees, t, &opts); > + if (unpack_trees(nr_trees, t, &opts)) > + return 128;
Magic 128 when everybody else in the patch returns -1 for error?
Otherwise the changes seem sensible, as long as the callers are paying attention to the return values, which I admit that I did not check.