Re: [PATCH 0/2] The merge-base logic vs missing commit objects (follow-up)

[Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 6:10 AM Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget
<gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jeff King reported that Coverity pointed out a problem in the patch series
> "The merge-base logic vs missing commit objects" (which made it into the
> next branch already): The return value of merge_submodules() is assigned to
> an unsigned, single-bit variable, which as a consequence is not able to hold
> a negative value indicating a non-recoverable error.
>
> I looked into this issue and am happy to report that there are no other
> instances of the same issue in that patch series. The first patch in this
> here patch series addresses that issue.
>
> While looking into this issue I also noticed that the merge_submodule()
> function did not even return negative values! This was an oversight on my
> part (which I attribute with a large amount of self-compassion to my utter
> lack of enthusiasm for submodules as a Git feature), and the second patch in
> this here patch series addresses that.
>
> This is a follow-up for
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1657.v4.git.1709113457.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/,
> based on the js/merge-base-with-missing-commit branch.

This series looks good to me; thanks.