[PATCH 1/2] SQUASH???

--- builtin/ls-files.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/builtin/ls-files.c b/builtin/ls-files.c index c0bce00..6e78c71 100644 --- a/builtin/ls-files.c +++ b/builtin/ls-files.c @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ static void write_name(const char *name) * churn.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] SQUASH???

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > >> * If you do not die() in start_failure_fn or return_value_fn, you >>don't want to write to stderr directly as you would destroy the fine >>ordering of the processes

Re: [PATCH 1/2] SQUASH???

Stefan Beller writes: > Sure. I just wanted to point out the details instead of resending the series. > I'll do a resend later today, hoping to get all issues addressed. Thanks. For something this small, unless there are many small pieces that need to be picked apart, I do

[PATCH 1/2] SQUASH???

This is a mixed bag of squashes. * pp_start_one() stuffed unborn child to the list of children when start_command() failed and start_failure() did not die(); return to the caller without corrupting children[] list in this case. * make poll(2) timeout used in pp_buffer_stderr()

Re: [PATCH 1/2] SQUASH???

Stefan Beller writes: > * If you do not die() in start_failure_fn or return_value_fn, you >don't want to write to stderr directly as you would destroy the fine >ordering of the processes output. So make the err strbuf available in >both these functions, and make

Re: [PATCH 1/2] SQUASH???

Junio C Hamano writes: > I think that is a sensible change. Don't we want the same for the > other failure handler, though. Capture any message from it and > append it to the output of the process that just finished, or > something? Ah, that is already done. Scratch that