On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 03:02:08PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 20/02/20(Thu) 17:53, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 05:24:12PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > > Here is a diff that shows how I would implement this if we really want it.
> > 
> > Note that my patch has one particular problem which cannot be
> > easily fixed:
> > 
> > > +	if (error && error->code != GOT_ERR_CANCELLED) {
> > > +		if (is_implicit_log_cmd &&
> > > +		    error->code == GOT_ERR_NO_TREE_ENTRY) {
> > 
> > Here, we don't actually know whether GOT_ERR_NO_TREE_ENTRY was raised
> > because the user passed a bad path, or because the library raised this
> > error internally somewhere.
> 
> Well one could argue that's related to error handling.  If the internals
> do not make difference between errors and failures that can be seen as
> entropy creation and the tool cannot go back ;)

Either way, it means that this feature request looks small on the
surface but actually creates a lot of work for me. I'd rather put
the energy elsewhere.