Re: [PATCH 4/6] fetch: report errors when backfilling tags fails

[Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1685 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 08:52:14AM +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:03 PM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> wrote:
> >
> > When the backfilling of tags fails we do not report this error to the
> > caller, but only report it implicitly at a later point when reporting
> > updated references.
> 
> Probably stupid question: are we sure that it's a bug and not a feature?

Good question, and I don't have a definitive answer for it. But to me it
very much smells like a bug: if I ask for a fetch and the fetch fails to
populate some of the data I have asked for, then I want to get a
notification on that failure.

> > This leaves callers unable to act upon the
> > information of whether the backfilling succeeded or not.
> >
> > Refactor the function to return an error code and pass it up the
> > callstack. This causes us to correctly propagate the error back to the
> > user of git-fetch(1).
> 
> Even if it would have been the right behavior when backfilling tags
> was implemented to return an error when backfilling tags fails, I
> think it's interesting to ask ourselves if this change could be seen
> as a regression by some users.

Yeah, it's not all that clear-cut because auto-following of tags is a
bit obscure. But our default behaviour is to fetch tags pointing into
the history, and if a user didn't want that they should've passed
`--no-tags` to git-fetch(1). So conversely, we should assume that a user
is asking for auto-filling of tags if we're not told otherwise, which
also means that it is a failure if this fails.

At least that's my take, but I'm happy to hear arguments against my
viewpoint.

Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]