From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F22BC433F5 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 07:52:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233257AbiBOHwh (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 02:52:37 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:40466 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229485AbiBOHwg (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 02:52:36 -0500 Received: from mail-ej1-x62f.google.com (mail-ej1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62f]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB5D3BBE2E for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 23:52:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id lw4so11585360ejb.12 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 23:52:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0Wt9j+U25CUVAK8aWM0ruByEJ4cI87heqiv6oHyskvk=; b=I5eJ3ufcsdUYObjD/WoucfmkpvWPLIOCr+8Vjt6aniU92de5f3oIsJXKBTM0z1L+PD 78SfVL50iMOXhJqW4MEEytMqUjc2Ira39/BHlqQFbYtmy5b7jjr/PF5wOKYNVPnII9ZN oK23rrhl5iqoPyzzs3lBQYHBEbz7IwCjSW0PLE3KfWAOcwqb/Epw7l6YnB/3mjU3b+x6 SNfYe43tl9CoUYFTejOHpgPTEeqWFfxf+OnUyxR6DIXS9+vu8JsCrMbLD8ZdIuk5FSQ5 9vJvzEE9R0N0uIT1dufylkTd12mCPFlUen1Ms4zf17AkBtKXYA+fn4ZGTz7GmUNlhH3X JLxg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0Wt9j+U25CUVAK8aWM0ruByEJ4cI87heqiv6oHyskvk=; b=hwwQ0t2jMt1HvYbyYmaLdpZT0h4iv2md73L7a6JwT/aZxVEvcBRtj+oDge/SCxuSDV f60Vbt0R3D6jYk78C3t1RAe6s4KmEM8iVvWDWt2DkJP26B2lNYg8SYTTM3AsDGKAF0wI 0n1+RXfs1BWYD+C3gtyvNjGPEcn3MVr9YzC9tKJpeOtQg0nvwtgsR9Thmj/xUQlYs0tD Hzq8cxfpguLfhywT4lSmLgAYDbgJZwm3yHsY/XA5HjBKBgyeKLULt9iFXu+SSucWYqt5 FeS2a3/kgyXpndzEsePaGXC+es7sQUwd3J9iNuoxAF8RIsIu5yto93N0kZHpcyXsqnA5 5ABg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53304gkLWuHJznIAPOIriT30trB0X8U+k71a76hcnfb+yQo1SKzJ D0CTo392NnXHQtqzBwD5F0BsP629iqItQgAMpTk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhyA4L3vsFtM6bMCb7agIsVCRNNR3scq/OZCLDaDgDA7dTGgZWvldKP7AXb/zKs1IoxYvEcOml5FUcwgKQGaY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2811:: with SMTP id r17mr1940583ejc.31.1644911545442; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 23:52:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <54fdee845bea7f67f46817417f8e5a504bd39665.1644565025.git.ps@pks.im> In-Reply-To: <54fdee845bea7f67f46817417f8e5a504bd39665.1644565025.git.ps@pks.im> From: Christian Couder Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:52:14 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] fetch: report errors when backfilling tags fails To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:03 PM Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > When the backfilling of tags fails we do not report this error to the > caller, but only report it implicitly at a later point when reporting > updated references. Probably stupid question: are we sure that it's a bug and not a feature? > This leaves callers unable to act upon the > information of whether the backfilling succeeded or not. > > Refactor the function to return an error code and pass it up the > callstack. This causes us to correctly propagate the error back to the > user of git-fetch(1). Even if it would have been the right behavior when backfilling tags was implemented to return an error when backfilling tags fails, I think it's interesting to ask ourselves if this change could be seen as a regression by some users.