On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 09:00:47PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> We might wonder why our && chain check does not catch this case:
> The && chain check uses a strange exit code with the expectation that
> the second or later part of a broken && chain would not exit with this
> particular code.
> This expectation does not work in this case because __git_ps1, being
> the first command in the second part of the broken && chain, records
> the current exit code, does its work, and finally returns to the caller
> with the recorded exit code. This fools our && chain check.
Wow. Good find. Patch itself is obviously correct.