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 22:01:40 +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> <20071114194522.GA3973@steel.home> <20071114203409.GD3973@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 23:02:21 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 1IsQJN-0005zx-6P for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:02:17 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754403AbXKNWCA (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:02:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754102AbXKNWCA (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:02:00 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:48109 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753370AbXKNWB7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:01:59 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2007 22:01:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp044) with SMTP; 14 Nov 2007 23:01:57 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18JaGJ0+P8JBBRH86DZTCeoxUdfG8f479XjfFoI8p 6pbPzNP8A7glDx X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <20071114203409.GD3973@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: > Alex Riesen, Wed, Nov 14, 2007 20:45:22 +0100: > > > Well, I do not know it _should_ fail. Personally, I would not even > > care: I see no way to cover with just one exit code multiple failures. > > Some references were updated and I don't even know which. So I'd > > better check whatever exit code. > > "I'd better check whatever was updated and damn the exit code" My point was: why not check both? I mean, you know if it fails in your case. Better to test for this behaviour, than to have it succeed here, but fail there. It's really easy, too: if it does not succeed, it fails. Just test for it. Ciao, Dscho "consistency is good"