Subject: Re: [PATCH] maintenance: add prune-remote-refs task

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 08:05:22 -0800

Shubham Kanodia <[email-masked]> writes:

>> Hmph, is there a reason why you need two loops, instead of
>> for-each-remote calling a function that does the run_command()
>> thing?
>
> It can be collapsed into one.

Sorry, but that is not an answer, as my question was not a
suggestion to change anything.

It was a question asking you if there was a specific reason why the
code was structured the way it was written.  If there is another way
to write it, you need to answer why the alternative wasn't picked.

>> This loop does not stop at the first error, but returns a non-zero
>> error after noticing even a single remote fail to run prune, which
>> sounds like a seneible design.  Would an error percolate up the same
>> way when two different tasks run and one of them fails in the
>> control folow in "git maintenance"?  Just want to see if we are
>> being consistent with the surrounding code.
>
> Fair point. I'll make the process flow identical to the prefetch refs
> task that works similarly across remotes.
> It returns as soon as the first remote fails (without necessarily
> affecting other tasks).

... and the first failure signals the caller a failure?  That would
match what you did in your new feature, which is perfect.

Thanks.