From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] t9902: fix 'test A == B' to use = operator Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:27:22 +0200 Message-ID: <87fvvogk1x.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> References: <8761wli0fe.fsf@linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net> <7v1u790xzj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: , Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen?= To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 09 11:27:30 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UwUCn-0003un-Pf for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 11:27:30 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753541Ab3GIJ10 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jul 2013 05:27:26 -0400 Received: from edge10.ethz.ch ([82.130.75.186]:34479 "EHLO edge10.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753217Ab3GIJ1Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jul 2013 05:27:25 -0400 Received: from CAS22.d.ethz.ch (172.31.51.112) by edge10.ethz.ch (82.130.75.186) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:27:21 +0200 Received: from linux-k42r.v.cablecom.net.ethz.ch (129.132.153.233) by CAS22.d.ethz.ch (172.31.51.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:27:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: <7v1u790xzj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:20:48 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) X-Originating-IP: [129.132.153.233] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > Thomas Rast writes: > >> The == operator as an alias to = is not POSIX. This doesn't actually >> matter for the execution of the script, because it only runs when the >> shell is bash. However, it trips up test-lint, so it's nicer to use >> the standard form. > > OK, my knee-jerk reaction was "this is only for bash" as you said, > but the test-lint part I agree with. > > But then test-lint _ought_ to also catch the use of "local" in the > ideal world, so perhaps in the longer term we would need to treat > this bash-only script differently from others anyway??? True. I didn't really think about wider implications; I just noticed that there was an easy-to-fix complaint from test-lint :-) -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch