From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS54825 147.75.80.0/22 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, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from am.mirrors.kernel.org (am.mirrors.kernel.org [147.75.80.249]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A2441F44D for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=sasl header.b=bIBqknIb; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from smtp.subspace.kernel.org (wormhole.subspace.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by am.mirrors.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12B461F22D4A for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588DD148FE3; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="bIBqknIb" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ED167E8 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 21:51:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712613108; cv=none; b=YfD9wdfgLrfyxOHJt6FNFfVqWcSC1Cjkgfy+GZ1FFFWZySeq5rUkLEZMQXlfRLJ0weHAU8bm8i93GmYs2VnGsUnoevLfZSbBzDQyjWa3h8i2x4yo5Q/+5E9PamUbzZqCzVyH6BF4zZttKL+Lq18l2M1vtn87LaP840tNELgYn2I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712613108; c=relaxed/simple; bh=D4e6TNHgiydr+4QS4HSbOvQgfAL+NW2nO6eBFCCFT9k=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=cZLaUWOAniUx8B65gLeNGGqG0gCVg6VBt0LhS1nXh/ZFDUuPePrItwRw2+G8M7ZiOwTEj0NAr7BuqQz4baHSql7BeCfB2nZOLl5oIo034Et26dXdc7VEWgh/cGhy1r6q61HX9Hdv3Q94tzcWThQ3drqkf+1+XcXYwqy4j9Zs2HQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=bIBqknIb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502EE1F51DF; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 17:51:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=D4e6TNHgiydr+4QS4HSbOvQgfAL+NW2nO6eBFC CFT9k=; b=bIBqknIb3NNlM1thSpSa6eT2gLdiI/je6we9hAS4EOsCKXp7a12IBj ngvRE64dLsEIlzt0dv/CyR4gt0ZqjOTP+RiagxXC0LesLMYrhllRnU/Z0eVg75Tt /pE/h6GZ0xm7JoKeJqs7PyPkKgC3I19/JSinFOH7rPIGB8emDyOh4= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C831F51DE; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 17:51:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.229.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B35401F51DD; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 17:51:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Eric Sunshine , git@vger.kernel.org, Han-Wen Nienhuys , Josh Steadmon , Luca Milanesio Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/12] t0612: add tests to exercise Git/JGit reftable compatibility In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Mon, 8 Apr 2024 18:22:10 +0200") References: <160b026e69547739a526fb6276a895904a4d33a8.1712555682.git.ps@pks.im> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 14:51:43 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 30F80B2A-F5F2-11EE-B5B4-25B3960A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Patrick Steinhardt writes: >> As xargs is supposed to know the system limit, perhaps >> >> test_seq 0 9999 | xargs printf "...%d...\n" >> >> should work? > > Is there a reason why we want to avoid using awk(1) in the first place? > We use it in several other tests and I don't think that the resulting > code is all that bad. There is no reason. It was a canned reaction against "gee we will bust shell's limit" to "use xargs then". Of course, if we can do the loop in the shell and everything we do in the loop with shell builtins (printf is often builtin in modern shells but not always, if I recall correctly), that would be best, and if the job is _that_ simple that we could do in the shell, it would make "awk" a horrible choice ;-)