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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_DKIM_INVALID 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 B4D641F516 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 22:31:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933907AbeFZWbR (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 18:31:17 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f195.google.com ([209.85.128.195]:40300 "EHLO mail-wr0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933596AbeFZWbP (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 18:31:15 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f195.google.com with SMTP id g18-v6so30970wro.7 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:31:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=PJH4A08vYEgF6GFYPj04ln/+N8MnVEEQHTyEEzoTCJI=; b=OnF2mtjdmZohl+nOEd0mUHVVmqGBG6WmFrmkdGp8OAvqqozlrkiCcX7O0ZPcEk1QYq xN5/hPqQi9wIGnaB/AO7BJeoVbFXFPxsAYO8B489bZ6AG+dAqc4MxGq1FY3wbdOo8hEv j7mFkeC1hQBdfc+rwcPLnFaylHwmcJJFEYaOoywXTksDZGvjWTNDAhYTXYlPA1l5j3p3 bRjGxIvYDBGd1BEPdebCQDebpWu5levCr0Z30iaOgPjQSPVM7nnQ75o2QIg2ZhlU+4rl f6uPa50suhHdKyU0aYGxegGWONylnyvked078tB+bKboFzyxq8Vf0Gt7AFMRsutdVQJv rZIg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=PJH4A08vYEgF6GFYPj04ln/+N8MnVEEQHTyEEzoTCJI=; b=taYijAwXCKmedcvZ8YKH3BCH2cLIR162EWM/AaBKhLY3xBIp2xctUEkaN2aYISrtXI 3zrBFp/uxPw7LtCDXTaGKXh9u+ccIdZhfHrnjat8H7EBv3/Qh6YTsvzTOAVKWtC5TjGd HrF5MgM2JvA87YA4D2Dg1MlO+ywIdQdyt6ASAZYcDEMIaMeouu5IGqrUxyGDD9s+slZ3 7QJqdyopRVrJHgGDExDzgWmfqBFex4UGHJDRLxqS3Hq38Uq9sX0sXoGjfi0P7izJzo9C KGr0Bu9CmJHG78ljBmLBezsoFEaEqVRSy1KsN+Gm11fo5lLfg4LHg6htrr78CrZ+ACYF PtZw== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2qVPdR1RNGg2UDs+yRqqlXEMffIwLSNtrhHy9JB7Mpfh9Ip+2J D2AEGdRvB3bpxh9kqLSEoeA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpf0Uyc9kVBqjV2TgYBba1xfVN1gEAfLsnSQ5/gQLUBOQ5gV/uKayrUVSL5/obc0WtkG/LS4vg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:b310:: with SMTP id j16-v6mr2818714wrd.207.1530052273299; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (168.50.187.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.187.50.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w126-v6sm3494584wmw.29.2018.06.26.15.31.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:31:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Git List , Jeff King , Jonathan Nieder , SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= , Stefan Beller , Elijah Newren , Jonathan Tan Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/29] t: detect and fix broken &&-chains in subshells References: <20180626073001.6555-1-sunshine@sunshineco.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:31:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Eric Sunshine's message of "Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:25:34 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Eric Sunshine writes: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:38 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: >> I first looked at 29/29 and got heavily inclined to reject that >> step, and then continued reading from 1/29 to around 15/29. >> >> 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).