From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: git bisect code 125 - "WFT?" Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:55:06 +0100 Message-ID: <4D81B04A.1010802@viscovery.net> References: <7v1v267no9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List , Christian Couder To: Piotr Krukowiecki X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 17 07:55:32 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q077L-00042z-2f for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:55:31 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751846Ab1CQGzQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:55:16 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:10271 "EHLO lilzmailso01.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751544Ab1CQGzO (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:55:14 -0400 Received: from cpe228-254-static.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q076x-0005Fo-Dh; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:55:08 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134F61660F; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:55:06 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 3/16/2011 23:06, schrieb Piotr Krukowiecki: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Piotr Krukowiecki writes: >> >>> Opinions? Would it be possible to change the meaning of the codes now >>> (in 1.8.0)? >> >> How about just documenting why it is a bad idea to use 126 or 127 as you >> found out somewhere, and stopping there, iow, without changing the code to >> use 126/127 that we consider it is a bad idea to use and avoided using so >> far? > > Documenting it won't help. If you get 126 code, you won't know if user > returned it to mark the code as bad, or if bash returned it to say > that it can't > execute a command. Huh? Why should the user's script return 126 or 127, particularly if the documentation says "don't do that"? Moreover, any decent (shell) programmer will know that these two values are reserved by POSIX for particular purposes (they are _not_ specific to bash): http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_09_01_01 -- Hannes