Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Instead of "we must stay dumb" I wanted to say "we are not dumber (in > this case)". Thanks, then what we aim for are compatible ;-) I do agree that we should make sure we will not ever become overly stupid. > To properly test "these objects are included," do we have an > established pattern for saying "this file is a subset of that file"? > Or, should I use something like `comm expected actual >common && > test_cmp expected common`? Yeah, "comm -23 must-exist actual" would be a natural thing to use when we have two sorted files and want to see what is missing from the actual output among those that must exist. t6500 and t9350 already seem to use the tool, so it should be OK from portability's point of view to non-UNIX systems.
