From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5644C1F516 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:23:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933795AbeF0AXA (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:23:00 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f66.google.com ([74.125.83.66]:38884 "EHLO mail-pg0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932261AbeF0AW7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:22:59 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f66.google.com with SMTP id c9-v6so120674pgf.5 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:22:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=x/UfmkTadcyL8dCIvaQ8ZmA188qPdNpfc8LZepcIvN4=; b=eFOkAJQqykU8s1TrPf97+04vSNGNrhdVLW60kyjz6fUxAA7RYI7z9gZvkZ0bH08cv7 QTLZoF/fHC1m7oJOK3ZVQnphuynuXV6jxfZdEkZsC3HwQX1zoIiAXJUDPFoXuZhYyEC9 oXGytJ34gn/V6KsJG9sMo3maNQOUMFWieZV3GC5HoFou51Z9vLtBBs0g0wewGtS8oUKY bt1Cp8scemGf621yZZEq2oxZ7+HSihdM3jm05HZ/wfJzME/uyrhyyY0Tl7zvkGno/TC+ dQm8w018f0GlJo0Lr4G3hU0EE55zfaipRe738geWpJzCAr+z1xvDINtelS8U7UAnXiSL 9s5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=x/UfmkTadcyL8dCIvaQ8ZmA188qPdNpfc8LZepcIvN4=; b=leTQyF+3Ebj7F01lmHJ2vosp/8p5It1hdQTubXnc41CbeeJk1DB6v7BCFxWQFQhRI5 32bOZ/BpftFAjW/B4aki0shN9Y9/9/Uknkacj76ol9TdFOj4SI/WhMDKPlKV8hnuN5bk LiiLYF3Ep6T1mH0CfCpAdbA0OUzvyzitX/Cjda+3IwPlfblKbKzICYO5G0CcGe0Jj4et X1EBY4GDfkG5KRyFxcHu4UMu9gqQuCf+oFkje5WYSW+1Jbm3fePw9Rfbjmlj9KP2aaoa hJA/QMGdvWG5PzCbmniFPcywrn32UFhUJUnjGrkDS882Vgftuy4cxS0dptykcD2ihXYL FosQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0GLSxOj/MtCoYyMtZ5EKsAgDTv8sgh9a8aXenDRhVhaxWIhScj TxUr6B4G5VeD1U9GgVyGN9zhv/uu X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJ0CdNSPg9re5qt6gV0fbNJffoH6r+QzSVgP954hOEIqNHXIQVMv/s57i/U716uL9OVZYwYnA== X-Received: by 2002:a65:4aca:: with SMTP id c10-v6mr3143244pgu.327.1530058978560; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aiede.svl.corp.google.com ([2620:0:100e:422:4187:1d6c:d3d6:9ce6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 14-v6sm4947124pft.10.2018.06.26.17.22.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:22:55 -0700 From: Jonathan Nieder To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Eric Sunshine , Git List , Jeff King , SZEDER =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?= , Stefan Beller , Elijah Newren , Jonathan Tan Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/29] t: detect and fix broken &&-chains in subshells Message-ID: <20180627002255.GC12488@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> References: <20180626073001.6555-1-sunshine@sunshineco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jun 26, 2018 at 03:31:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Eric Sunshine writes: >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:38 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> I like these earlier changes that fix existing breakage, of course. >>> I also like many of the changes that simplify and/or modernise the >>> test scripts very much, but they are unusable as-is as long as their >>> justification is "chain-lint will start barfing on these constructs". >> >> Sorry, I'm having difficulty understanding. >> >> Are you saying that you don't want patches which exist merely to >> pacify --chain-lint? (For instance, 2/29 "t0001: use "{...}" block >> around "||" expression rather than subshell".) > > Yes. > >> Or are you saying that you don't like how the commit messages are >> worded, and that they should instead emphasize that the change is good >> for its own sake, without mentioning --chain-lint? > > Yes, too. > > For example, 03/29 is a good clean-up, and its value is not > diminished even if we reject the subprocess munging --chain-lint in > 29/29. > > As opposed to 02/29 which mostly is about appeasing the "shell > parser" in 29/29 (or you could justify it saying "one less fork and > process" if that gives us a measurable benefit). This is a lighter-weight example of the practice described at https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LFD.2.00.1001251002430.3574@localhost.localdomain/. In my opinion it's good advice, often worth repeating. Thanks, Jonathan