Re: [PATCH] remote show: fix the -n option

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jun 9, 2008, 04:53 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0806090551070.1783@racer>
In-Reply-To: <484CAE95.3020008@free.fr>

Hi,

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Olivier Marin wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin a écrit :
> > 
> > No, I think that the information about stale branches and if the 
> > branches are up-to-date is missing.  In that sense, it is not like 
> > "route -n" at all, which just skips one convenience step, but really a 
> > dry run, because the result is different (as opposed to differently 
> > displayed).
> 
> Am I wrong if I say that dry run is for commands that modify something? 
> For example there is no "diff --dry-run" probably because diff does not 
> change anything. A dry run has no real meaning for diff.

For me, a dry run is something that avoids the high-cost operations.

Something like, uhm, a dry run of a ship.

Show 9 quoted lines

> >> In fact, it seems that get_ref_states() always return 0 or just die 
> >> when an error occur. And that transport_get_remote_refs() never 
> >> return if something goes wrong.
> >>
> >> So, what about removing got_states and use !no_query instead ?
> > 
> > Hrmpf.  I did not mean to die() there...
> 
> I don't understand. Is it ok or not?

I would not like to remove the got_states. I think this is the wrong direction. Rather change the die() into a return error().

Ciao, Dscho