Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] git-push: make git push --dry-run --porcelain exit with status 0 even if updates will be rejected
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:48:12
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · [PATCH v3 3/3] git-push: make git push --dry-run --porcelain exit with status 0 even if updates will be rejected · Larry D'Anna <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] git-push: make git push --dry-run --porcelain exit with status 0 even if updates will be rejected · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] git-push: make git push --dry-run --porcelain exit with status 0 even if updates will be rejected · Larry D'Anna <hidden>
Larry D'Anna [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
@@ -1052,7 +1053,7 @@ int transport_push(struct transport *transport, flags & TRANSPORT_PUSH_FORCE); ret = transport->push_refs(transport, remote_refs, flags); - err = push_had_errors(remote_refs); + err = (pretend && porcelain) ? 0 : push_had_errors(remote_refs);
Hmph, you are doing (rewritten in an easier to follow format) if (--dry-run && --porcelain) err = 0; else err = push_add_errors(remote_refs); here, which I think changes the semantics of what follows immediately after this hunk, namely: if (!quiet || err) print_push_status(transport->url, remote_refs, verbose | porcelain, porcelain, nonfastforward); Earlier, the logic said "even if you asked for --quiet, we would report if there is an error" but now you are changing the rule to "under --dry-run and --porcelain, --quiet means don't ever report the status, even when there are errors". I don't necessarily think it is a bad change, but in any case the semantic change is worth documenting.