On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 12:52:49PM -0800, Stefan Beller wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Welcome to the Git community! >> >> > >> > Actually, being a *micro* project, it should stay so. Not doing all of the >> > changes would leave some tasks for other apprentices to get warm with our >> > review process. >> >> right, so just pick one file. > > I also wonder if we really want all invocations of git to be marked up > in this way. If the primary goal of the test is checking that a certain > git command runs successfully and generates the expected output, then I > think it is a good candidate for conversion. > > So in a hunk like this: > > test_expect_success 'git commit-tree records the correct tree in a commit' ' > commit0=$(echo NO | git commit-tree $P) && > - tree=$(git show --pretty=raw $commit0 | > - sed -n -e "s/^tree //p" -e "/^author /q") && > + tree=$(git show --pretty=raw $commit0 >out && > + sed -n -e "s/^tree //p" -e "/^author /q" <out) && > test "z$tree" = "z$P" > > we are interested in testing commit-tree, not "git show". Is it worth > avoiding pipes there? I admit the cost to using the intermediate file is > not huge there, but it feels more awkward and un-shell-like to me as a > reader. > > -Peff Thank you everyone, for reviewing my changes. And as said in the reviews, I'll send a single patch file as my microproject, leaving the other files as low hanging fruit for the others to look at. Also, I try to include as many suggested improvements as possible and will also remember them for my future patches.