| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Dnia 29 października 2015 09:28:53 CET, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
>> Patch v2, with logic inverted: |
| 5 |
>> 0 = sources are unmodified |
| 6 |
>> 1 = patches applied successfully |
| 7 |
>> 2 = failure |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Rationale: The relevant information is if sources are unmodified or |
| 10 |
>> (potentially) modified, so these two states should correspond to shell |
| 11 |
>> true and false, respectively. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Also seems natural to return 0 in the most common case that there are |
| 14 |
>> no user patches, and in the case that eapply_user() is a no-op. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Nah, that's going to be confusing. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Why? We have two successful states, so obviously (at least) one of |
| 19 |
them must return shell false. I don't see why one would prefer the |
| 20 |
"user modified" case over the "unmodified" case. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> if ! eapply_user; then |
| 23 |
> # patches were applied...?! |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> I'd go for: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> 0 - applied |
| 30 |
> 1 - no patches |
| 31 |
> and die on failure |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
No, that would be inconsistent with behaviour of all other commands |
| 34 |
under nonfatal. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Ulrich |
Archives