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-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,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 356381F4B4 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 20:04:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728455AbgJRUEv (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Oct 2020 16:04:51 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:62746 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732967AbgJRUEv (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Oct 2020 16:04:51 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13E571A62; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 16:04:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=UfneaQ/MV+/Qud0u+LMEm4KMK54=; b=RN2eoK 5ql6R+wXqRuBf4IUMUqYA716hLpF+3/Hfe1/z6cJdsYSgxvI7onv0ULfKVU0+dNb dMrTzjlUEXTV7gd0XtSYTA3G5MjTkTvHO3YmHCBlgOJ8xE3C1ddatKa3rqNzz8ba lFskoPPpPlve9RTmr5lYbVxGiAEsz03obvNLw= 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=vy5fpAJyvmip/4DdIT85Sn0qtrUrRxqv revnz0vhkpAzXLcj6sBmrrlIyTiDClh9s/oGfuBMz0AIi0iXaYzwnYL2Xkbt2usi VUXhS+jXuTkEtdcXOkjHnGM7JG/3PkNdab0jYOnC4EAIFeyVyNMqXMt9W2hAAsmf YhsKRwr6CDs= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E795A71A60; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 16:04:48 -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 72E2C71A5F; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 16:04:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Amanda Shafack via GitGitGadget , Git List , Emily Shaffer , Jonathan Nieder , Amanda Shafack Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] t9832,t2200: avoid using pipes in git commands References: Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 13:04:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Eric Sunshine's message of "Sun, 18 Oct 2020 15:25:40 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2CC8B03E-117D-11EB-8EB4-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Eric Sunshine writes: > precise, the subject could say: > > t2200,t9832: avoid using `git` upstream in a pipe > > Nit: It's subjective, but it feels a bit more natural to list the test > numbers in ascending order rather than descending order, which is why > I swapped them around in the example above. ;-) >> When a git command is upstream in a pipe, an unexpected failure of >> the git command will go unnoticed. >> >> Write out the output of the git command to a file, so as to actively >> catch a failure of the git command. > > It's easy to see from the patch itself that the output of the Git > command is now written to a file, so it's not necessary to say so in > the commit message. Therefore, the entire body of the commit message > could be written more succinctly, perhaps like this: > > Avoid placing `git` upstream in a pipe since doing so throws away > its exit code, thus an unexpected failure may go unnoticed. Yup. > The actual patch itself looks fine, and these comments about the > commit message are quite minor, thus there probably is no need to > re-roll (though feel free to do so if you think the bit of extra > polishing of the commit message is worthwhile). IIUC, the microproject experience aims new contributors to get used to the style of communication that happens during review cycles of a typical topic, using a trivial dip-the-toes-in-the-water problem as an example. I'd rather not to see contributors get into the habit of leaving loose ends and have somebody else clean after them. Thanks.