From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF4B202A0 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:15:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751399AbdJ0BPy (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:15:54 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:60189 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751236AbdJ0BPx (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:15:53 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35476AD148; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:15:53 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=6poT8hcR005ZkIJlV0y0PZXyjtI=; b=FigXaf XRFjM4KfrjLqM6+uevShrEOqM9njZZxCDF4S81Il2ETn+ddu8C0jdTHODKrQd+1e RIcFI/FqWtSoV8ZdPf5kYNbTz0E/HwKIqg/8anf0kSwxcrzMfyePDC/V/l0RwoO4 O+wYgg6AzHnkhGCoAZz7s+sIm7dz3nRXXWN4g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=tv2+IOlxjUcHI2sGRZLJ15Sgl4bA335j AEzN5IIo2rLHlYFx3spBx0oGbSMgZeod4P+viEtaOnoOHL6bFVOzJ1KsIXoTJ0Qi 1vBVcJHwKxr8l6ZPYnhjwZT5zDfmRRoFPE+jvPO6OWseNNsyZEwnQt/xhQwZH9rJ qv07NtnUHKk= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA4FAD147; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:15:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C2CCAD146; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:15:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jacob Keller Cc: Eric Sunshine , Michael Haggerty , Jeff King , Git List Subject: Re: [PATCH] t0000: check whether the shell supports the "local" keyword References: <6ecab31e7ed05f5e79ecd454b133a2bfa6ac9ab7.1509005669.git.mhagger@alum.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:15:51 +0900 In-Reply-To: (Jacob Keller's message of "Thu, 26 Oct 2017 01:40:46 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 600EE486-BAB4-11E7-9EFC-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jacob Keller writes: > I don't think you're missing anything. I think the idea here is: "do > any users who actively run the test suite care if we start using > local". I don't think the goal is to allow use of local in non-test > suite code. At least, that's not how I interpreted it. > > Thus it's fine to be only as part of a test and see if anyone > complains, since the only people affected would be those which > actually run the test suite... > > Changing our requirement for regular shell scripts we ship seems a lot > trickier to gauge. Yup, that matches my expectations for what we would gain out of this change.