Re: [PATCH 0/2] The merge-base logic vs missing commit objects (follow-up)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
writes:

> Jeff King reported that Coverity pointed out a problem in the patch series
> "The merge-base logic vs missing commit objects" (which made it into the
> next branch already): The return value of merge_submodules() is assigned to
> an unsigned, single-bit variable, which as a consequence is not able to hold
> a negative value indicating a non-recoverable error.
>
> I looked into this issue and am happy to report that there are no other
> instances of the same issue in that patch series. The first patch in this
> here patch series addresses that issue.
>
> While looking into this issue I also noticed that the merge_submodule()
> function did not even return negative values! This was an oversight on my
> part (which I attribute with a large amount of self-compassion to my utter
> lack of enthusiasm for submodules as a Git feature), and the second patch in
> this here patch series addresses that.
>
> This is a follow-up for
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1657.v4.git.1709113457.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/,
> based on the js/merge-base-with-missing-commit branch.

Thanks.

>
> Johannes Schindelin (2):
>   merge-recursive: prepare for `merge_submodule()` to report errors
>   merge-ort/merge-recursive: do report errors in `merge_submodule()`
>
>  merge-ort.c       |  5 +++++
>  merge-recursive.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: caaf1a2942c25c1f1a15818b718c9f641e52beef
> Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-1686%2Fdscho%2Fmerge-base-and-missing-objects-followup-v1
> Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-1686/dscho/merge-base-and-missing-objects-followup-v1
> Pull-Request: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1686