On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:43:27PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > > > > Yes. I haven't been following the intermediate discussion and patches, > > but I don't see anything wrong with the general design above. I think > > you do need to use rp_error() to get the die message to the client for > > non-ssh cases, though (that is a problem with other protocol-error > > messages, too; I wonder if we should install a custom die handler, or > > convert them all to some kind of rp_die()). > > Some of the rp_error messages do not want to die(), but most seem to > be ok when the rp_error would die.
Sorry, I meant converting die() into: rp_error(...); die(...); possibly via an rp_die() helper. The existing rp_error() cases would remain untouched. Installing a die handler could make that work automatically, though I suspect it would lead to corner cases where we break protocol (e.g., if we die() in the middle of writing out a packet). -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
