On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: > Christian Couder <[email protected]> writes: > >> +/* >> + * Try to apply a patch. >> + * >> + * Returns: >> + * -1 if an error happened >> + * 0 if the patch applied >> + * 1 if the patch did not apply >> + */ >> static int apply_patch(struct apply_state *state, >> int fd, >> const char *filename, >> @@ -4413,6 +4421,7 @@ static int apply_patch(struct apply_state *state, >> struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT; /* owns the patch text */ >> struct patch *list = NULL, **listp = &list; >> int skipped_patch = 0; >> + int res = 0; >> >> state->patch_input_file = filename; >> read_patch_file(&buf, fd); >> @@ -4445,8 +4454,10 @@ static int apply_patch(struct apply_state *state, >> offset += nr; >> } >> >> - if (!list && !skipped_patch) >> - die(_("unrecognized input")); >> + if (!list && !skipped_patch) { >> + res = error(_("unrecognized input")); >> + goto end; >> + } > > Before this patch, the program said "fatal: $message" and exited > with status = 128. All these changes in this step modifies the > external behaviour and make it say "error: $message" and exit with > status = 1 (at least the caller in apply_all_patches() does so). > > Will that be an issue for the calling scripts?
Hopefully the scripts don't check the specific error code and message. I will add something about this in the commit message. Do you think something else that should be done about this? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
