Re: [PATCH GSoC v18 11/13] cat-file: add remote-object-info to batch-command

>
>> +static void parse_cmd_remote_object_info(struct batch_options *opt,
>> +					 const char *line, struct strbuf *output,
>> +					 struct expand_data *data)
>> +{
>> +	int count;
>> +	const char **argv;
>> +	char *line_to_split;
>> +	struct object_info *remote_object_info = NULL;
>> +	struct oid_array object_info_oids = OID_ARRAY_INIT;
>> +
>> +	if (strlen(line) >= MAX_REMOTE_OBJ_INFO_LINE)
>> +		die(_("remote-object-info command too long"));
>> +
>> +	line_to_split = xstrdup(line);
>> +	count = split_cmdline(line_to_split, &argv);
>> +	if (count < 0)
>> +		die(_("remote-object-info: %s"), split_cmdline_strerror(count));
>> +	if (count - 1 > MAX_ALLOWED_OBJ_LIMIT)
>> +		die(_("remote-object-info supports at most %d objects"),
>> +		    MAX_ALLOWED_OBJ_LIMIT);
>> +
>> +	if (get_remote_info(opt, count, argv, &remote_object_info,
>> +			    &object_info_oids))
>> +		goto cleanup;
>
> Since this function does not return a value, the caller cannot
> even tell if there was an error if we just silently return like
> this.  Is it really OK to silently ignore such a failure?  Should
> we not die() loudly to report it instead?