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=-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 9CC061F9E0 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 22:36:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726554AbgD2Wgb (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:36:31 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:60243 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726164AbgD2Wga (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:36:30 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE0F5CAC46; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:36:29 -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=hwEEghYGpxzUHnogHJLSUxFXspM=; b=wZN4Tt ejcTq/47DM9X6KbNYEcQrXV6z+qEl31brNBo3bkiKJWfvcsOukOfkxXQHc6U2IBG PRt3x+LOqdv79ISQ+w2MujCD0JWRD47iMHonTJ2D+eit05kg98gSAOyjJLMhTvjN 1nW+0fXXEA18/dyTEj3tBhVvvFtGA8Q66AD/0= 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=h/f30Ob0pDsD/So28PK3l7PW3Su/uXZd dZ/cKOo/nrnIvQBZftp+SUtT2tWEb9luh7CiptZnO5HeMrtBELkk7WSd7a4Lo+hN 12SeG9sf+7G53piU2FMgFve51sxEN2E59G/MylHGPnM3bCb34WKcgQ9ey5jsGSjh JQChmz6VJzI= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6054CAC45; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:36:29 -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-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C698CAC44; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:36:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: Johannes Sixt , Denton Liu , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH 0/4] t: replace incorrect test_must_fail usage (part 5) References: <20200429195035.GB3920@syl.local> <90edb162-e035-bdb7-a2d2-ffc6bd075977@kdbg.org> <20200429214906.GA12075@syl.local> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:36:25 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200429214906.GA12075@syl.local> (Taylor Blau's message of "Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:49:06 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: DD06D214-8A69-11EA-A1C9-B0405B776F7B-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Taylor Blau writes: > Hmm. I say this as somebody who just re-rolled a series to add two > 'test_might_fail umask 022' lines, so am a little disappointed to learn > that this is not considered to be idiomatic. > ... > Junio: do you want another reroll of that series? :/ The one I saw and remember was two new umask calls protected in POSIXPERM prerequisite but without test-might-fail involved. Perhaps there is nothing to reroll? Or perhaps I am not checking my mailbox often enough?