Caleb Thompson <caleb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 07:41:29PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:42:26AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> > > [1] It might make sense for test_set_editor, when run from within a >> > > test, to behave more like test_config, and do: >> > > >> > > test_when_finished ' >> > > sane_unset FAKE_EDITOR && >> > > sane_unset EDITOR >> > > ' >> > > >> > > I don't know if there would be fallouts with other test scripts, >> > > though. >> > >> > The default environment for tests is to set EDITOR=: to avoid >> > accidentally triggering interactive cruft and interfering with >> > automated tests, I thought. >> >> Ah, yeah, that would make more sense. >> >> > If the above sane-unset is changed to EDITOR=: then I think that is >> > probably sensible. >> >> I think the trick is that other scripts may be relying on the global >> side-effect, and would need to be fixed up (and it is not always obvious >> which spots will need it; they might fail the tests, or they might start >> silently passing for the wrong reason). > > For this reason, and that the scope of this change has already ballooned, I'd > rather not make this change in this patch if that's alright. > > Caleb Thompson My comment was not about your series, but "if we were to update test_set_editor, unsetting EDITOR is not the right thing to do". I do not think it is reasonable to include such a change to test_set_editor in this series. -- 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