Jun 26, 2018 at 03:31:11PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:38 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 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).
This is a lighter-weight example of the practice described at
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LFD.2.00.1001251002430.3574@localhost.localdomain/.
In my opinion it's good advice, often worth repeating.
Thanks,
Jonathan
