Re: [PATCH 5/7] rebase -i: return control to the caller, for housekeeping
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 25, 2013, 14:30 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALkWK0n6gDTBk0G+gm6UHgMb_ueLGMZQyYVP_D24G8uXCyjXvw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CANiSa6hmh1d7ECBCAm+AKFV4KXh7eoHfk7pL0RjaqZj4XbKhpw@mail.gmail.com>
Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
> Normally one would break if unsuccessful. What would fail if this was > replaced by "do_next || break" and the above ".. && return 1" was ".. > && return". I assume that was your first attempt, but why did it not > work?
Thanks. This was a major thinko on my part, but I don't remember exactly why I got confused. I'll explain this patch properly in the next iteration.