Message153858
| Author |
nadeem.vawda |
| Recipients |
brett.cannon, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, francismb, nadeem.vawda |
| Date |
2012年02月21日.08:15:52 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.008429753 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1329812153.57.0.374225732572.issue14053@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Patch looks good; I've just got one more small suggestion.
The variable 'some_applied' in mq_patches_applied isn't really necessary
- it would be clearer if you just said:
return st.returncode == 0 and bstdout
after the call to st.communicate().
> Interesting: I saw that repetition but due "[...] Ideally, it
> should distinguish between this and other errors by checking the
> subprocess's stderr, so that if a different error occurs, we can still
> print out the error message. [...]" I just wanted to keep cmd's separated > first :-)
When I said that, I was referring to the 'hg qapplied' command (not the
'hg status' one), but I can see how it might have been confusing ;) |
|