On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:56:20AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > "--" prevents the following arguments from being interpreted as options if they
> > > > begin with "-". That's a good practice, but it doesn't help with ${FOO} being
> > > > empty. To cause the script to exit if ${FOO} is empty, it can be written as
> > > > ${FOO:?}. Alternatively, 'set -u' can be used.
> > >
> > > I said that four days ago. Did nobody receive that reply?
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/20240225165128.GA1128@sol.localdomain/T/#m0efd851c5a1fb0dbe418f4aff818d20f4355638b
> > >
> >
> > You didn't mention the :? option, and I thought that would be worth mentioning.
> >
> > Of course ideally -u would be used everywhere, as you said.
>
> Yes, but why not reply to my reply instead of replying to the original
> patch as if I'd never said anything at all?
>
> The background on that -- I've been noticing the last couple of years
> that every now and then I'll reply to something; then a day or two go
> by; and then someone else will say the exact same thing I said.
>
> However, they don't simply reply to my email with "Yes, what Darrick
> said". Often the reply literally reiterates what I said. That makes me
> feel invisible, which isn't great. Then I do some digging and usually
> find out that actually no, it's that Microsoft or Google or vger smtp
> servers are either (a) broken or (b) their AI have decided that I am a
> spammer or (c) maybe I actually /am/ in everyone's killfiles due to the
> sheer volume of patches that I send to the lists.
>
> Regardless, every time I see that I start worrying that email is broken
> yet again.
>
> That said, I'm not complaining about your specific behavior, Eric; I'm
> putting out there that I don't trust our review process at all anymore.
> <sadface>
>
I did receive your email. I just happened to reply to Zorro's reply instead
because it was more recent, was discussing the same topic, and I was adding some
new information anyway. Sorry for trying to contribute.
- Eric
