From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improved and extended t5404 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:18:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20071115041801.GA9794@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20071112213823.GB2918@steel.home> <20071112213938.GC2918@steel.home> <20071113075240.GA21799@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20071113194731.GC3268@steel.home> <20071113194909.GD3268@steel.home> <20071113230234.GI3268@steel.home> <7vmythr8xf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071114071929.GA2942@steel.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Alex Riesen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 15 05:18:29 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IsWBP-0006QP-JU for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:18:28 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754021AbXKOESL (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:18:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752343AbXKOESK (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:18:10 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:4393 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751787AbXKOESJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:18:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 5843 invoked by uid 111); 15 Nov 2007 04:18:06 -0000 Received: from ppp-216-106-96-30.storm.ca (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (216.106.96.30) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:18:06 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:18:03 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071114071929.GA2942@steel.home> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 08:19:29AM +0100, Alex Riesen wrote: > Well, it is kind of undefined. git push just updated some remote > references and failed on the others. It has had some failures, so it > returns non-0. And as I said, it really is not about the operation, > but about if the tracking and remote branches are set as we want them. My goal with the recent patches is that _any_ failure will cause a non-0 exit code (but you have to read the stderr output to find out which, if any, refs were successful). -Peff