On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:49:15AM -0700, David Aguilar wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 07:55:58AM -0700, Elia Pinto wrote:
> > The construct is error-prone; "test" being built-in in most modern
> > shells, the reason to avoid "test <cond> && test <cond>" spawning
> > one extra process by using a single "test <cond> -a <cond>" no
> > longer exists.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > t/t5000-tar-tree.sh | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh b/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh
> > index 74fc5a8..ad6fa0d 100755
> > --- a/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh
> > +++ b/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ check_tar() {
> > for header in *.paxheader
> > do
> > data=${header%.paxheader}.data &&
> > - if test -h $data -o -e $data
> > + if test -h $data || test -e $data
> > then
>
> This looks okay, but it raises a question for the original author
> (René, I think that's you so I've added you to the To: line).
Just following up -- I got a bounce from René's email address.
>
> Should that be "test -f" instead of "test -e"?
It does seem like this should be "test -f" nonetheless.
Sorry for the noise.
> This is a very minor note and should not block this patch.
--
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html