From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] Functions for updating refs. Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:08:54 +0200 Message-ID: <46DD7506.3090503@eudaptics.com> References: <46DD6020.4050401@gmail.com> <46DD6B93.10005@eudaptics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Carlos Rica , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 04 17:09:02 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ISa1W-0006i2-1s for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:09:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754368AbXIDPI5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 11:08:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754429AbXIDPI5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 11:08:57 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:25233 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754368AbXIDPI5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Sep 2007 11:08:57 -0400 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1ISa1O-0002cP-Pa; Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:08:54 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.42] (j6t.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4006B7; Tue, 4 Sep 2007 17:08:54 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, AWL=-0.376, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin schrieb: > Hi, > > On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin schrieb: >>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Carlos Rica wrote: >>>> +int update_ref_or_die(const char *action, const char *refname, >>>> + const unsigned char *sha1, >>>> + const unsigned char *oldval, int flags) >>> Should this not be "void"? And should it not use update_ref_or_error()? >> It should not use *_error() directly because then it would print two error >> messages in a row. > > Well, my idea was to let _error() print the message, and just die(). How do you avoid that die() prints an error, too? -- Hannes