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 B5CED1FA02 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 22:13:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727110AbgD2WK4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:10:56 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:51972 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727049AbgD2WK4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:10:56 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFBCB0EAF; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:10:54 -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=M1K/C9XEI24PBdnxaI2KxzZv7n8=; b=FTtpdM jSNwb+VpvlVJENxQomSI9JkDU5jn0TIoZdA2EFoCqG4UtuRToMlgAmZ0ITwkCnLt f5/ZXh1xzsqFfJdwCcvcWWeifWcC0Nr9WRstXFwN5srsGou5QbsAQFN9ALbmYv40 9CViUkBVSW7VOGhv/C0xJmnDSVmb9KW1zpp7o= 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=oJFCoHUa8X2ysp8IucrXJNzMXzsR/n1Y v+eYv0pqro58S4QB+E5+P3GaMpuIKS26f4zAe7nNKUH3CxWVj5N5FSHCXtOAF9WS spXBJlGspAomrOGkGVMRyEaL8Mj/KQ3B7llYgaxmtQp7p4qjoQzJcO+Z/E48kIlo ZSilS9HVbRM= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28E7B0EAE; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:10:54 -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-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 092B7B0EAD; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:10:51 -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 15:10:50 -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: 49F8AB12-8A66-11EA-A9BD-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Taylor Blau writes: > To me this seems a little overkill, but it may not be on environments > where an extra subshell incurred by 'test_might_fail' might be overly > expensive. It comes from the same principle as "we are not in the business of catching segv from system tools---don't use test_must_fail on non-git commands". Adopting the convention happened quite some time ago and that was why I checked if we failed to document it. What I wondered was if it is overkill to document the convention; if the convention was overkill is not a question at this point.