Re: [PATCH] stash: don't leak underlying error messages

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On 04/12/2012 09:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Sign-off?

Oops, I'm not really used to the whole sign-off thing.

> Is create_stash (hence save_stash) the only operation that do not make
> sense when HEAD is not born yet?  I am wondering if it makes more sense to
> either:
>  (1) catch the case where HEAD is not born yet a lot earlier and do not
>      let the control even reach these functions (i.e. die inside the
>      case/esac statement at the end of the script); or
>  (2) pretend as if HEAD is a commit that records an empty tree, and not
>      error out to begin with.
> If either one of the above turns out to make sense, then the issue this
> patch addresses becomes irrelevant, so...

I think it would be more consistent if stash worked without any commits
having taken place so I'll look at (2).
Ross Lagerwall

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Newbies FAQ]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Free Online Dating]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Free Online Dating]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]     [Linux Resources]

Add to Google