Jakub Narębski writes:
> But I am not against "return 0;" on validation error (would putting
> it in separate patch make review easier, or just pointlessly proliferate
> patches?).
OK.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.ke
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Krzesimir Nowak writes:
>> On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 17:07 +0100, Jakub Narębski wrote:
>>> The only change that needs to be done is replacing
>>>
>>>return $input;
>>>
>>> with
>>>
>>>return 1;
>>>
>>
>> I prefer to use
Krzesimir Nowak writes:
> On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 17:07 +0100, Jakub Narębski wrote:
>> The only change that needs to be doe is replacing
>>
>>return $input;
>>
>> with
>>
>>return 1;
>>
>
> I prefer to use zeros instead of undefs - one might wonder if that undef
> is so
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 17:07 +0100, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Krzesimir Nowak
> wrote:
>
> > Users of validate_* passing "0" might get failures on correct name
> > because of coercion of "0" to false in code like:
> > die_error(500, "invalid ref") unless (check_ref_f
Jakub Narębski writes:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Krzesimir Nowak
> wrote:
>
>> Users of validate_* passing "0" might get failures on correct name
>> because of coercion of "0" to false in code like:
>> die_error(500, "invalid ref") unless (check_ref_format ("0"));
>
> I would say that t
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Krzesimir Nowak wrote:
> Users of validate_* passing "0" might get failures on correct name
> because of coercion of "0" to false in code like:
> die_error(500, "invalid ref") unless (check_ref_format ("0"));
I would say that the problem was that validate_sth() su
Users of validate_* passing "0" might get failures on correct name
because of coercion of "0" to false in code like:
die_error(500, "invalid ref") unless (check_ref_format ("0"));
Signed-off-by: Krzesimir Nowak
---
gitweb/gitweb.perl | 45 +
1 file cha
7 matches
Mail list logo
