From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F9B1F9E0 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 22:16:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726887AbgD2WQQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:16:16 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50186 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726481AbgD2WQP (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:16:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x542.google.com (mail-pg1-x542.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::542]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 526B5C03C1AE for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x542.google.com with SMTP id n16so1695439pgb.7 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=Uty8Tqqz+VsKemZqeVlu3pPfo15gxEQNvFaMQR9YkRs=; b=Dnn2sk4UGMm6d383+b8TPYBb/PxeWpuRADPQ5wwxh8v9xo2OC6yljDAhmpC5Us6aRI BuOup7a8+rMUvhIhXjMlBGdfC6+evs4BaH01Ue9NtR0NN7/lm+zpzdIcdTg+I/i7NydJ /5z5bq7cNfoymeqndwPytqJ9Rif8k6TqT1dcc0lB5t7kXHpeFxOFm8v2wEEOFeIBpauc hr1xb1I4WV1JAHWS5ifKdSejYVya/8VD/q+0beQjpH0B3e0p4JkdhBPfNphzPWOc+Nvs V22mX52z0KnpvEWlpQMzU0YyWJer+xh6SqDtlhTHAWh+53sYsWS1gqyMwbKJ0FHf1s9R L/vQ== 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; bh=Uty8Tqqz+VsKemZqeVlu3pPfo15gxEQNvFaMQR9YkRs=; b=VZB+T2IQ3ssCaVlD2ftIptqeHrbNp129cVhUqIQtw29A/Hpg3srnlN0SWAYLHoF42l 7mi0rUntKaimvorhwmzIBWZuMuX4ROB/M5jf70VbxD1aj4BaK9oX0a07132P1/KBnrl+ NsCaCRb8yhlAl5RXE0OrCgLaIt/pajFfmqj/mQLPod5+7MeIgkZUi6MGNClHKbG1h1qO vvQMygcLAt2VyzMY2yiJC2I7y4VWaDmX6fUduH7dcix4/D2k3/jSq2PJQ+tnnTDaDEas gkhAQAog5+SJgrWSaB0rqP1w/azitY1MVF4pwfksiGz9QbLranUOL1wib58T9xLGoNlm rBSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaV0zm5D7jlBmEvTDEYqgcyQdwhEOAN6BK9iNLfxl+Q7053cvbY cPRsdK87wHoziM2PjdyD8YtCoQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKVMIwccJ8gi4cQYYcJCAG7+kVIC3eLuFSNoeiaSEvnCEh+A0fV4I6prG2PbkG4GEUpU7CDBA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:b649:: with SMTP id v9mr301282pgt.402.1588198573618; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([8.44.146.30]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b16sm1827935pfp.89.2020.04.29.15.16.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 16:16:11 -0600 From: Taylor Blau To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Taylor Blau , Johannes Sixt , Denton Liu , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH 0/4] t: replace incorrect test_must_fail usage (part 5) Message-ID: <20200429221611.GA12776@syl.local> References: <20200429195035.GB3920@syl.local> <90edb162-e035-bdb7-a2d2-ffc6bd075977@kdbg.org> <20200429214906.GA12075@syl.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 03:10:50PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Taylor Blau writes: > > > To me this seems a little overkill, but it may not be on environments > > where an extra subshell incurred by 'test_might_fail' might be overly > > expensive. > > It comes from the same principle as "we are not in the business of > catching segv from system tools---don't use test_must_fail on > non-git commands". Adopting the convention happened quite some time > ago and that was why I checked if we failed to document it. > > What I wondered was if it is overkill to document the convention; if > the convention was overkill is not a question at this point. Ah, fair enough. Thanks for a patient explanation. Thanks, Taylor