On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 09:30:50AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> commit 709ca730f8e093005cc882bfb86c0ca9c83d345b
>> Author: Jeff King
>> Date: Sat Jan 5 09:49:49 2013 -0500
>>
>> run-command: encode signal death as a positive integer
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 09:30:50AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > The original commit that introduces this says
> >
> > run_command: encode deadly signal number in the return value
> >
> > We now write the signal number in the error message if the program
> > terminated by a signal
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Felipe Contreras
>>> wrote:
>> Yeah, and last year we returned a different code. The world didn'
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Felipe Contreras
>> wrote:
> Yeah, and last year we returned a different code. The world didn't
> end, because nobody is checking for the specific code.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> Nobody is checking for specific error codes; it's the errno that's
>> important.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
>> ---
>> run-command.c | 14 ++
>> 1 file changed,
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Thomas Rast wrote:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
>
>> Nobody is checking for specific error codes; it's the errno that's
>> important.
> [...]
>> - /*
>> - * This return value is chosen so that code & 0xff
>> - * mimics the exit c
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> Nobody is checking for specific error codes; it's the errno that's
> important.
>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
> ---
> run-command.c | 14 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/run-command
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Felipe Contreras
>>> wrote:
Nobody is checking for specific error codes; it's the errno tha
Felipe Contreras writes:
> Nobody is checking for specific error codes; it's the errno that's
> important.
[...]
> - /*
> - * This return value is chosen so that code & 0xff
> - * mimics the exit code that a POSIX shell would report for
> - * a p
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Felipe Contreras
>> wrote:
>>> Nobody is checking for specific error codes; it's the errno that's
>>> important.
>>
>> Have you just disregarded the in-c
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> Nobody is checking for specific error codes; it's the errno that's
>> important.
>
> Have you just disregarded the in-code comment you just removed with
> one statement?
Who cares abo
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> Nobody is checking for specific error codes; it's the errno that's
> important.
Have you just disregarded the in-code comment you just removed with
one statement? Did you check all its callers?
>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
> ---
>
Nobody is checking for specific error codes; it's the errno that's
important.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
---
run-command.c | 14 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/run-command.c b/run-command.c
index 1b32a12..e54e943 100644
--- a/run-command.c
+++
13 matches
Mail list logo
