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=-3.6 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 3A6591F516 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:34:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751597AbeFZPeG (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:34:06 -0400 Received: from mail-ua0-f196.google.com ([209.85.217.196]:44506 "EHLO mail-ua0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751334AbeFZPeG (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:34:06 -0400 Received: by mail-ua0-f196.google.com with SMTP id v15-v6so4323534ual.11 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:34:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LsaLVnbhQhpogGQLwBbcfhNqVf4KrwY9u1yOsaYa+d4=; b=vNcIF+yh2DViId2aOqzulfZo61yRvKWNnHazXi+RqgMxjjOJvTyQ9lp010sE51FDQt LJMJTc4ZL+oiVKKbESmhs79d9aZ6/1xaW8Kwb17izY4Y6Za9LoTDocpuCCitk1z2iz2c t/9Rh8Sio1uqXjfiRmc3l8xCdDSimvuSITqiC7CW9N6z+LY9fYRcjqjc0iQCOEkBSw+f fK+i/tM0wXca3yBs0ILDtO6SmDerWGqnIYaxh6tMloOKTjUtWu4Nx4WSl3fgZQpPEhMJ zEEpnQWmiI+WDJ/ahoxkOo+DMyr42X9+fTMQ/+vTGnN361oB6cyrMt2L4jcEiAIqDdgj 33yw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LsaLVnbhQhpogGQLwBbcfhNqVf4KrwY9u1yOsaYa+d4=; b=Zvx0mulkT1xiAZk26XpL/KrTI7hBSgT0Tb0WVWm1rqlr9xG8DlQEbQIlA0B5ufktV/ F7lrz2FCLNZ4CmE+KVASzgg3NaI3AS2Ry/RVH1oIiWCBR9mA5xpCkldbppTl4rLu2Ylm towd0R54HVwtGxa4iGDx6eEXY0l2WqhAz0ZGm4EmI4sVVz7yZsFjI+94nCKE43a5wOpP 8Tg4bdeF89V7mN5rS/dXQB7ZrLmcsEix/9vFMxDAEyrN/+WYhKfoSxfvs+e/XbcyfdMT AZR9yacr/Y6pOReMaw7sCUAg1XlpMtm6UDF6cJJ1c3OatCHvmj9U0nXEOXFwrFfErCjp pKEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E10Wl7G85YNaU61mf5wwSmPEs9iwb3STeE5FNvsJh0sn9AtTcgw NZQ8YJoc8TjSQBrCJ9hZ1SJdlKNRZD1Ht7aUJwU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfx4woO/YH7zcjuigyOIBiqXiuYLkUa9wqV3kQlQ9tnKP+XX+oSro9EQ0+vOIwQOp/uq1/jvw2o4iSVngpkYoc= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:57c9:: with SMTP id u9-v6mr1364195uac.94.1530027245032; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:34:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ab0:2310:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:34:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20180626073001.6555-1-sunshine@sunshineco.com> From: Elijah Newren Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:34:04 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/29] t: detect and fix broken &&-chains in subshells To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Git Mailing List , Jeff King , Jonathan Nieder , =?UTF-8?Q?SZEDER_G=C3=A1bor?= , Stefan Beller , Jonathan Tan Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Eric, On Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 2:31 AM Eric Sunshine wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:20 AM Elijah Newren wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > > Aside from identifying a rather significant number of &&-chain breaks, > > > repairing those broken chains uncovered genuine bugs in several tests > > > which were hidden by missing &&-chain links. Those bugs are also fixed > > > by this series. I would appreciate if the following people would > > > double-check my fixes: > > > > > > Stefan Bellar - 8/29 "t7400" and (especially) 13/29 "lib-submodule-update" > > > Jonathan Tan - 10/29 "t9001" > > > Elijah Newren - 6/29 "t6036" > > > > Commented on the patch in question; 6/29 looks good. > > > > I also looked over the rest of the series. Apart from the ones you > > specifically called out as needing review by others besides me, and > > the final patch which makes me feel like a sed neophyte, all but one > > patch looked good to me. I just have a small question for that > > remaining patch, which I posted there. > > I guess you refer to your question[1] about whether test_must_fail() > is the correct choice over test_expect_code(). I just responded[2] > with a hopefully satisfactory answer. Yes, it does. Thanks!