From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] send-pack: tighten remote error reporting Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:59:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20071118075908.GA24972@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20071118055804.GA19313@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20071118071651.GB18467@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Barkalow To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Nov 18 08:59:36 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 1Itf43-0007C2-Ku for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:59:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751172AbXKRH7O (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:59:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751232AbXKRH7O (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:59:14 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:3722 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750991AbXKRH7N (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:59:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 8759 invoked by uid 111); 18 Nov 2007 07:59:11 -0000 Received: from ppp-216-106-96-70.storm.ca (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (216.106.96.70) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:59:11 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:59:09 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071118071651.GB18467@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 02:16:52AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > + print_ref_status('!', "[remote rejected]", ref, > + ref->deletion ? ref->peer_ref : NULL, > + ref->remote_status); Gah, that should of course be: ref->deletion ? NULL : ref->peer_ref > + case REF_STATUS_EXPECTING_REPORT: > + print_ref_status('!', "[remote failure]", ref, > + ref->deletion ? ref->peer_ref : NULL, > + "remote failed to report status"); And the same here. I had resisted making a test that checked the exact output format, because such things are often a pain to keep up to date. But that's two regressions in patches I've submitted that would have been caught. Maybe I should just pay more attention. -Peff