Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:38 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I first looked at 29/29 and got heavily inclined to reject that
>> step, and then continued reading from 1/29 to around 15/29.
>>
>> I like these earlier changes that fix existing breakage, of course.
>> I also like many of the changes that simplify and/or modernise the
>> test scripts very much, but they are unusable as-is as long as their
>> justification is "chain-lint will start barfing on these constructs".
>
> Sorry, I'm having difficulty understanding.
>
> Are you saying that you don't want patches which exist merely to
> pacify --chain-lint? (For instance, 2/29 "t0001: use "{...}" block
> around "||" expression rather than subshell".)
Yes.
> Or are you saying that you don't like how the commit messages are
> worded, and that they should instead emphasize that the change is good
> for its own sake, without mentioning --chain-lint?
Yes, too.
For example, 03/29 is a good clean-up, and its value is not
diminished even if we reject the subprocess munging --chain-lint in
29/29.
As opposed to 02/29 which mostly is about appeasing the "shell
parser" in 29/29 (or you could justify it saying "one less fork and
process" if that gives us a measurable benefit).
