Re: [PATCH v2] t1401: check symbolic-ref exit codes and --quiet silence

> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
>> I'm still not completely sold that this difference is intentional. As
>> you mentioned elsewhere, in one code path we use `exit(1)` and in the
>> other we use `die(...)` to print an error message, which returs 128. But
>> that to me feels more like nobody noticed that those return different
>> error codes rather than an intentional difference in design, so casting
>> that behaviour into stone with new tests feels wrong to me.
> 
> I tend to agree.  The choice of 1 would have been more about "we
> need to exit with non-zero status" than "we need to use something
> different from what is used by die()".

> 
>> I'd suggest that we either:
>>
>>    - Continue not checking for the exact error code.
>>
>>    - Adapt the `exit(1)` to instead be `die(NULL)` so that we have the
>>      same error code across both code paths and then verify that both
>>      have the same error code.
> 
> Both sounds very sensible.
> 
> Especially the former to avoid overspecifying what does not matter
> in the end.
> 
> Thanks.
>