Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] fetch: let --jobs=<n> parallelize --multiple, too

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Oct 7, 2019, 10:14 UTC
Message-ID: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1910071212170.46@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwodh4ann.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

Hi Junio,

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > Hi Junio,
> > ...
> >> Thanks.  I think it is much better to prepare these tests like this
> >> patch does to be broken when phrasing changes---that would give
> >> feedback and confidence to the person who is changing the message
> >> and/or the logic to emit the message.
> >>
> >> Where does the constant 128 come from, by the way?  If it is from errno.h
> >> then we will soon hear breakage report from NonStop folks, I predict
> >> ;-)
> >
> > It comes from `die()`:
> > ...
> > 	exit(128);
>
> OK, so hopefully we wouldn't see any platform specific variations.

I am certain of it, as the matched `128` is not printed implicitly, it is printed by these two lines that I added in this patch (as part of `fetch_finished()`):

+               strbuf_addf(out, _("could not fetch '%s' (exit code: %d)\n"),
+                           remote, result);

Thanks, Dscho