From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:30:44 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] rebase -i: return control to the caller, for housekeeping
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.