Daniel Shahaf wrote on Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 17:37:53 +0200:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 16:31:24 +0100:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 05:22:14PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > +1 to having a non-zero exit code if there was any error throughout.
> > I think we should try to keep this discussion within the scope
> > of the current patch, which is about adding a --keep-going option
> > and providing sensible output when it is used, in order to
> > keep things simple for Prabhu. We can build upon that later
> > and defer things like munging the exit code to a separate patch.
> That discussion is perfectly within the scope of the current patch:
> notifying the errors and clearing them _causes_ svn to return non-zero
> exit code when it encounters a verification error.
> IOW, the patch causes a regression in the "verification errors cause
> non-zero exit code" behaviour.
Or, rather, it causes svn to exit(0) despite having printed something to
stderr. I think it'll be better to exit(1) in that case.
Received on 2012-11-01 16:40:38 CET