# [PATCH] rebase: return non-zero error code if format-patch fails 4 messages from 2015-07-02 to 2015-07-06. Participants: Clemens Buchacher, Junio C Hamano. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/39765 ## Clemens Buchacher, 2015-07-02 09:11 Subject: [PATCH] rebase: return non-zero error code if format-patch fails Message-ID: <20150702091133.GA13353@musxeris015.imu.intel.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20150702091133.GA13353%40musxeris015.imu.intel.com ``` Since e481af06 (rebase: Handle cases where format-patch fails) we notice if format-patch fails and return immediately from git-rebase--am. We save the return value with ret=$?, but then we return $?, which is usually zero in this case. Fix this by returning $ret instead. Cc: Andrew Wong Signed-off-by: Clemens Buchacher Reviewed-by: Jorge Nunes --- git-rebase--am.sh | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/git-rebase--am.sh b/git-rebase--am.sh index f923732..9ae898b 100644 --- a/git-rebase--am.sh +++ b/git-rebase--am.sh @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ else As a result, git cannot rebase them. EOF - return $? + return $ret fi git am $git_am_opt --rebasing --resolvemsg="$resolvemsg" \ -- 1.9.4 ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2015-07-03 17:52 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase: return non-zero error code if format-patch fails Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqpp493z8f.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <20150702091133.GA13353@musxeris015.imu.intel.com> ``` Clemens Buchacher writes: > Since e481af06 (rebase: Handle cases where format-patch fails) we > notice if format-patch fails and return immediately from > git-rebase--am. We save the return value with ret=$?, but then we > return $?, which is usually zero in this case. > > Fix this by returning $ret instead. Sounds sensible. > > Cc: Andrew Wong > Signed-off-by: Clemens Buchacher > Reviewed-by: Jorge Nunes Where was this review made? I may have missed a recent discussion, and that is why I am asking, because Reviewed-by: lines that cannot be validated by going back to the list archive does not add much value. Thanks. > --- > git-rebase--am.sh | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/git-rebase--am.sh b/git-rebase--am.sh > index f923732..9ae898b 100644 > --- a/git-rebase--am.sh > +++ b/git-rebase--am.sh > @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ else > > As a result, git cannot rebase them. > EOF > - return $? > + return $ret > fi > > git am $git_am_opt --rebasing --resolvemsg="$resolvemsg" \ ``` ## Clemens Buchacher, 2015-07-06 08:53 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase: return non-zero error code if format-patch fails Message-ID: <20150706085326.GA30731@musxeris015.imu.intel.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20150706085326.GA30731%40musxeris015.imu.intel.com In-Reply-To: ``` On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 10:52:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > Cc: Andrew Wong > > Signed-off-by: Clemens Buchacher > > Reviewed-by: Jorge Nunes > > Where was this review made? I may have missed a recent discussion, > and that is why I am asking, because Reviewed-by: lines that cannot > be validated by going back to the list archive does not add much > value. Jorge helped me by reviewing the patch before I submitted it to the list. My intention is to give credit for his contribution, and to involve him in any discussion regarding the patch. Maybe it makes more sense to say Helped-by:? Please feel free to change as you see fit. I will follow your recommendation in the future. Thanks. ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2015-07-06 17:01 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase: return non-zero error code if format-patch fails Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqq1tgl2pav.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <20150706085326.GA30731@musxeris015.imu.intel.com> ``` Clemens Buchacher writes: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 10:52:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> > >> > Cc: Andrew Wong >> > Signed-off-by: Clemens Buchacher >> > Reviewed-by: Jorge Nunes >> >> Where was this review made? I may have missed a recent discussion, >> and that is why I am asking, because Reviewed-by: lines that cannot >> be validated by going back to the list archive does not add much >> value. > > Jorge helped me by reviewing the patch before I submitted it to the > list. My intention is to give credit for his contribution, and to > involve him in any discussion regarding the patch. Maybe it makes more > sense to say Helped-by:? Thanks; I think that clarifies it, and I think that is how people seem to use Helped-by around here. ```