From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improved and extended t5404 Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:10:25 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: References: <20071112213823.GB2918@steel.home> <20071112213938.GC2918@steel.home> <20071113075240.GA21799@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20071113194731.GC3268@steel.home> <20071113194909.GD3268@steel.home> <20071113230234.GI3268@steel.home> <7vmythr8xf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071114071929.GA2942@steel.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King To: Alex Riesen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 14 18:11:03 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 1IsLlW-0003mS-KX for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:11:03 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755988AbXKNRKq (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:10:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755881AbXKNRKq (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:10:46 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:34446 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755969AbXKNRKp (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:10:45 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2007 17:10:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp003) with SMTP; 14 Nov 2007 18:10:43 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19/qRZVTkV/fS2AIzit9BY7bSEscvwyfdSdFCDg/y +bo/T9FrQhyrAp X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <20071114071929.GA2942@steel.home> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Alex Riesen wrote: > Junio C Hamano, Wed, Nov 14, 2007 01:02:20 +0100: > > Alex Riesen writes: > > > > > Ignore exit code of git push in t5404, as it is not relevant for the > > > test > > > > This proposed log message solicits a "Huh? -- Since when ignoring exit > > code is an improvement?" reaction. If this push is expected to error > > out, then wouldn't you want to make sure it errors out as expected? > > If the problem is that the exit status is unreliable, maybe we need to > > make it reliable instead? > > Well, it is kind of undefined. git push just updated some remote > references and failed on the others. It has had some failures, so it > returns non-0. And as I said, it really is not about the operation, but > about if the tracking and remote branches are set as we want them. If you know it should fail, why not make the test dependent on that failure? I mean, should git-push have a bug and not fail, it would be nice to catch this early... Ciao, Dscho