Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > To me this seems a little overkill, but it may not be on environments > where an extra subshell incurred by 'test_might_fail' might be overly > expensive. It comes from the same principle as "we are not in the business of catching segv from system tools---don't use test_must_fail on non-git commands". Adopting the convention happened quite some time ago and that was why I checked if we failed to document it. What I wondered was if it is overkill to document the convention; if the convention was overkill is not a question at this point.
