From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC1191F4F8 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:43:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934123AbcJERnp (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:43:45 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:50310 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934111AbcJERnm (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:43:42 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0865B42A1B; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:43:41 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=GeIX81v+BFfjeg65Ui4D1RvJ2Zg=; b=aDwHXk lmNWyrg8vei+QL6k3JBFE8QL94iULj77khORVtCafpKHIKcG1zPE+Pc7w0aTfr+t 9R0wls7Sm4Pg75YKzHX2/Ny9bsJmUDuWTpdmgEq7Hryak9rv9iCf8WYiu+yH2EqJ fp6rhQ3ZoBnUAX/7v+wcjl25+OqvzbzpHvdoQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=nstjzpjG8BByQg6N7trkZgCGrc5sdE+L 0mlfcxmYsfYfU9sDIKWj8OVsRUu98LE8vMvyeqwwnEq7vfOt12Cgqh/WKX7d0+QA OF1kWxSSVFMGYLX363jveFXm+vVN6xp4Lxsz1jYrHsFxSYtnUV/qyWX0a6Xi4Ybp KSSyj2gvLxQ= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003E542A1A; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:43:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6FA1842A19; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:43:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= , Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/25] sequencer: remember do_recursive_merge()'s return value References: <44c455710fd9c420a3f759d021c4864f3a83c97a.1473590966.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 10:43:38 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:35:50 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 4090550C-8B23-11E6-AFCF-5F377B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > Actually, come to think of it, I will change the patch, as it is too > confusing. What I want is to preserve a positive return value in case of > merge conflicts, and that is exactly what I should do instead of playing > games with the Boolean OR operator. That would be good; that was exactly the confusion I felt that led to my comments.