From: Junio C Hamano Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:31:52 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH GSoC v18 11/13] cat-file: add remote-object-info to batch-command Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260715-ps-eric-work-rebase-v18-11-34d7adb051bb@gmail.com> Pablo Sabater writes: > +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? Thanks.