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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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 D943C1F5AE for ; Tue, 4 May 2021 23:55:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230454AbhEDX4S (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 May 2021 19:56:18 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:65119 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229694AbhEDX4R (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 May 2021 19:56:17 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B63BB3B11; Tue, 4 May 2021 19:55:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=M5dahjst6GMgNlFPB5gKdyfoUEBA0C1/4diGO3 bY/+c=; b=d2K5IIxQDGO3/33xhmFRJpsMsBRyOb1IDMGu/DfNdqmZIwLXEGr0Gd QdOjVRPEAAh5ym03QKfZV3eDJnOP+gKz7IF5ruirlwBhR0+yEbQfBqJgmPDsgFqr fFShiJlne6N8xSnLjWwYKPBeeZcvAwtlRT14wTXd1sinRRN3ahxuE= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71DDAB3B10; Tue, 4 May 2021 19:55:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C43C3B3B0F; Tue, 4 May 2021 19:55:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "brian m. carlson" Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , Git List , Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] CodingGuidelines: explicitly allow "local" for test scripts References: <877dkgxk9p.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <87czu6wuf3.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> <87a6pawmyu.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 08:55:20 +0900 In-Reply-To: (brian m. carlson's message of "Tue, 4 May 2021 23:17:57 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2F49633C-AD34-11EB-88CF-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org "brian m. carlson" writes: > One of the main reasons the Austin Group is having trouble standardizing > it is because some shells implement it with lexical scoping and some use > dynamic scoping, but if we try not to make too many assumptions, we'll > probably be okay. Thanks for raising that one. As long as we make sure that our script would work with anybody's "local", I do not care very much. I just didn't think we want to spend the effort to explain that in the documentation and enforce it---compared to the effort, just saying "no" is certainly easier. But if somebody wants an incremental patch on top to spell out how "local" is allowed to be used in our scripts, that's fine by me.