From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2C3C001B0 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 19:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236058AbjHHTUp convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2023 15:20:45 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60298 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234233AbjHHTUX (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Aug 2023 15:20:23 -0400 Received: from secure.elehost.com (secure.elehost.com [185.209.179.11]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5F7C16561 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:43:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at secure.elehost.com Received: from Mazikeen (cpebc4dfb928313-cmbc4dfb928310.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.228.251.108] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by secure.elehost.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 378DQ8eC118611 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 13:26:08 GMT Reply-To: From: To: References: <015101d9c6f9$218ceb20$64a6c160$@nexbridge.com> <015901d9c6ff$43606050$ca2120f0$@nexbridge.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: git bug report Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:28:13 -0400 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <064501d9c9fc$31e45750$95ad05f0$@nexbridge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQHVPeJBGZLMc5nAv9V18HhdmYtcngIBTFUtAnxDwA4Bb/RQXwJhgQPDAX8KJpOvmwvMEA== Content-Language: en-ca Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 9:08 AM, Paul Watson wrote: >>From: rsbecker@nexbridge.com >> >>> I am not convinced this is a defect. The result of --shortstat is to >>> report that there are differences, so it is possible that 0 is >>> correct here. Others might have a different opinion. I can recreate >>> without including any other options. >> >> The code has already done the work to identify if there are differences. > Why >would it not return a meaningful exit code? > >Also, since the --exit-code switch has been specified, it should set the exit code >accordingly. I think this is a decision for the maintainers, whether I agree or disagree. I have to defer to others. --Randall