From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsck: exit with non-zero status upon error from fsck_obj() Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 18:07:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20140909220709.GA14029@peff.net> References: <1409177412.15185.3.camel@leckie> <20140829185325.GC29456@peff.net> <1409343480.19256.2.camel@leckie> <20140829203145.GA510@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: David Turner , git mailing list To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 10 00:07:23 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XRTZH-00057T-H5 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:07:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752124AbaIIWHM (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2014 18:07:12 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:46207 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751387AbaIIWHM (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2014 18:07:12 -0400 Received: (qmail 19038 invoked by uid 102); 9 Sep 2014 22:07:12 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 17:07:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 11173 invoked by uid 107); 9 Sep 2014 22:07:31 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 18:07:31 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 09 Sep 2014 18:07:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 03:03:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > From: Jeff King > Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:31:46 -0400 > > Upon finding a corrupt loose object, we forgot to note the error to > signal it with the exit status of the entire process. > > [jc: adjusted t1450 and added another test] > > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano > --- > > * I think your fix is a right one that catches all the "we can > parse minimally for the purpose of 'struct object' class system, > but the object is semantically broken" cases, as fsck_obj() is > where such a validation should all happen. > > I can haz a sign off? Thanks. Thanks, I think this is a step forward regardless of other conversation on the exit code, as it is just harmonizing loose and packed object behavior. Signed-off-by: Jeff King -Peff