On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 17:07 +0100, Jakub Narębski wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Krzesimir Nowak krzesi...@endocode.com
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
Krzesimir Nowak krzesi...@endocode.com 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
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Krzesimir Nowak krzesi...@endocode.com 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
Jakub Narębski jna...@gmail.com 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
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 krzesi...@endocode.com
---
gitweb/gitweb.perl | 45
Jakub Narębski jna...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Krzesimir Nowak krzesi...@endocode.com
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));
6 matches
Mail list logo
