From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Mar 21 10:44:07 2020 Received: (at 40143-close) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Mar 2020 14:44:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47814 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jFfM6-0001Kp-Mi for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 10:44:06 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:50549) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jFfM4-0001Jp-1r for 40143-close@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 10:44:04 -0400 Received: from webmail.gandi.net (webmail18.sd4.0x35.net [10.200.201.18]) (Authenticated sender: brice@waegenei.re) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 038E160007; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 14:43:56 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 14:43:56 +0000 From: Brice Waegeneire To: Brice Waegeneire Subject: Re: bug#40143: [PATCH] gnu: git: Return #t in install-man-pages phase. In-Reply-To: <877dzdkcgv.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20200320092005.22388-1-brice@waegenei.re> <20200320105406.42ba348b@scratchpost.org> <87blor3y5h.fsf@gmail.com> <877dzdkcgv.fsf@gmail.com> Message-ID: <97f43fbba8a1b83caa53373c459a7639@waegenei.re> X-Sender: brice@waegenei.re User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.8 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40143-close Cc: Danny Milosavljevic , 40143-close@debbugs.gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer , Guix-patches X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On 2020-03-21 14:29, Mathieu Othacehe wrote: > Hello Brice, > >> Danny Milosavljevic writes: >> >>> invoke already returns #t, so there's no technical bug. >>> >>> That said, maybe for clarity? Not sure... > > I agree with Danny and Maxim here, we already return a boolean, or > raise an exception in case of error, so I think we are fine :) > > Closing this bug, > > Thanks, > > Mathieu Looks like a forgot to reply to all, I replied to Danny that it should be closed. I missed the RTFM sign... I didn't knew about Maxim's link and would like to know where are we in transitioning away from getting rid of boolean return code in phases.