Hi Hannes, On 2015-05-07 21:12, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Am 07.05.2015 um 19:06 schrieb Paul Tan: > >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Johannes Schindelin >> <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-05-07 10:44, Paul Tan wrote: >>>> @@ -32,4 +35,18 @@ test_expect_success pull ' >>>> ) >>>> ' >>>> >>>> +test_expect_failure '--log=1 limits shortlog length' ' >>>> +( >>>> + cd cloned && >>>> + git reset --hard HEAD^ && >>>> + test `cat afile` = original && >>>> + test `cat bfile` = added && >>>> + git pull --log && >>>> + git log -3 && >>>> + git cat-file commit HEAD >result && >>>> + grep Dollar result && >>>> + ! grep "second commit" result >>>> +) >>> >>> I think it might be better to use `test_must_fail` here, just for >>> consistency (the `!` operator would also pass if `grep` itself could not >>> be executed correctly, quite academic, I know, given that `grep` is >>> exercised plenty of times by the test suite, but still...) >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> Yep, it's definitely better. Sometimes I forget about the existence of >> some test utility functions :-/. > > Nope, it's not better. test_must_fail is explicitly only for git > invocations. We do not expect 'grep' to segfault or something. > > Cf. eg. > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/258725/focus=258752 That link leads to a patch that changes `! grep` to a `test_must_fail grep` and is not contested, at least not in the thread visible on GMane. Would you have a link with a more convincing argument for me? Thank you, Johannes -- 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