From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f46.google.com (mail-wm1-f46.google.com [209.85.128.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92320381AF9 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 18:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.46 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787596512; cv=none; b=og/Uclswf95abDVLG40wr1xfRqaJP7vZmIcqco2YtKQDS2w/SubiYBbpNzhZ6GTuxSxRJfKxdATHTZQsxzMa59BOHe0NkJrSY1+7qroY3SKE8FJrXRu3XHNTo78FS0JAUDstdkvK7I3mVp/sWh7om5iYtkcQKH2vonKwLhDUorM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1787596512; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Dw1xosBxLNKXu2f6WELztg6TqFb4oC1bMmq83uqFz8g=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=VaAQNCQQjfnCoIUQs575l2Pj+UOwNA/8QT0jC+pDTPwq+wZ8kbDk7icyDc6xtfBLWQTgXzlEXV/Lw+ZMJNlLVG4g9t0K72yYPHayo2BWHr5QMojKk6qcJCB7jKYB8qjZlZKsuR92bj4jTKIxOIy6KVuD6TIMf27ZtXTYP4YLTAs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=eg1P/GRC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.46 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="eg1P/GRC" Received: by mail-wm1-f46.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-499a4d1d7f1so20644225e9.3 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 11:35:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1787596510; x=1788201310; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:content-language :from:references:cc:to:subject:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=8rdUadd/J49dt/K4tcsv6hK3VRuRZ2ODypqV4oZBwOM=; b=eg1P/GRCb+ayxFelJoXw7RbjbZz3tOYSmlzKFXiCEmlxGBzmp0JFbkIMn+kOu+Xi+4 5Iwd4lFjd8xRqFz8qV/4oAcBQ+kpIIw5cfOswEPBpCdA01n4tA032t2ZNSB7/+ykIzCx YpwbLcWgapcYqNZIWDo6W9Et03dDY8uXsgo1EE298+g5X156iGxVka47zs7FtHQ29E5/ if9oRKgYOQM6P9PPlC2WCLlNzXqzZlBrfAZNW68k+ogzchDuD0PZh2BhgH+nfHKqI8tP GQrj/DTZjJr26GpSuo/Sdrb5/ocUgHGfDwwocw5kMQ/vUGtW5JO3Zmkxpcq/FsYkJmCE YpVg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1787596510; x=1788201310; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:content-language :from:references:cc:to:subject:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=8rdUadd/J49dt/K4tcsv6hK3VRuRZ2ODypqV4oZBwOM=; b=T61m0iBGzm7v4MWCdgNSXqQ/cP12Jkyg/Ht9pCxeAVn14t7A5viScgl9v3ESaXftOF rrkW2iJ3WoK3NkDVhbJYOB5EAmGv+I/BdjAOWmcKDSybtH2GJ/+Z8i9WErp9bl0fDp9R w8Y9sJIMARB6EHSloyBORk8nlQIFj8oaLxe7AwKWedNZfslfPEqmspBSNWjFQVwX55ia yYxSkAYhwt9/BjlKy0whPV+A3BDRzcAVhNmp7+SXdqovc3qLMXP937L7bnMU+TP6RL3x iJ4SEkFlSQAYH1w8tcZKGSaii8eS2I3D+kPyHZZeojH5qD8pU3gka3Duio+SIDS5qSQu uAmw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AHgh+RrGi2ISCYFcA79E+GlKDgKPKOpTY1gjnzjb9BiKa1m4pB7YXC6vGHm6qH+lEzZzFGBqksY=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++nA/ZLLke3HLCoFcNmN0pkiIvdgJB+AVVbFLWKfl6rIPcjMSy/J 8aMxGsvafkrduXPhE4qBmBBW2r8aoOkPL7MqklAjWU5U85bY1il2JlGQ X-Gm-Gg: AR+sD10wkfxXFBJtqW55A81b7yEivU9k/mYSCfhKsxJDE11t3OXCCL/p2mO4LccwhbZ Zxh/28Jjv2ueIBOgqadtKoLnzpZzZl4XdSz+jAC7Vq+vuPbMKENvsNOJpfAoDSzcQTXPhwLvoJ+ vJtUJppO3qKNSQ7qta3x2yOZaHme8xLemy/9/py79yoP4hVTue7sV5mFaalCHyu5bzZjE8NyQkI jiQvMZAUAT0uMNg1j/oMuWFcQTZ2Dhw7WoV3dtVkhrDrECd8gnTxuxal1nDKoNAgGlRBa3YofoD Zjb2LDVNPH60ffVLv5YQ5jq7YVWSKhFdXhjStgTXZvTdIUz1CZJfxTZiUGp19sZtwYnlqCt0R4L GqywttKtdwZu4nEE8BGyqcL/IDFjC9v/Y7QTR9H/cmVYAsccfAsSrF7mNXNhE++fEZfxh1Jj8uG P/XzPXwJkBlexaRqRu3Y3A5rUyXmono3UHAMmxg3JVqHd6rpqsE+9+Po9+4qDzKwRyBSwDdhSao RS2IN2+i1FJllWNxUOM052Q9sXD1kNU4E+ygff/7+E= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:5486:b0:499:a277:e8c8 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-499b8464cb8mr330882955e9.13.1787596509623; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 11:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2a0a:ef40:17bb:9901:c6b0:b529:d03b:36d? ([2a0a:ef40:17bb:9901:c6b0:b529:d03b:36d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-499d65c326esm1642545e9.10.2026.08.24.11.35.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Aug 2026 11:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9b5d2c16-3e95-4e3c-8cd9-9c25842bbb4e@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 19:35:03 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Reply-To: phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] t1401: check symbolic-ref exit codes and --quiet silence To: Junio C Hamano , Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Nikolaus Schuetz via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Nikolaus Schuetz References: From: Phillip Wood Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 24/08/2026 19:23, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Patrick Steinhardt writes: > >> I'm still not completely sold that this difference is intentional. As >> you mentioned elsewhere, in one code path we use `exit(1)` and in the >> other we use `die(...)` to print an error message, which returs 128. But >> that to me feels more like nobody noticed that those return different >> error codes rather than an intentional difference in design, so casting >> that behaviour into stone with new tests feels wrong to me. > > I tend to agree. The choice of 1 would have been more about "we > need to exit with non-zero status" than "we need to use something > different from what is used by die()". I'd always assumed the difference was to allow scripts to distinguish between an invalid option and the ref not existing, like "git rev-parse --quiet --verify" and "git show-ref --quiet --verify". Thanks Phillip > >> I'd suggest that we either: >> >> - Continue not checking for the exact error code. >> >> - Adapt the `exit(1)` to instead be `die(NULL)` so that we have the >> same error code across both code paths and then verify that both >> have the same error code. > > Both sounds very sensible. > > Especially the former to avoid overspecifying what does not matter > in the end. > > Thanks. >