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.
