On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 03:10:50PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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. Ah, fair enough. Thanks for a patient explanation. Thanks, Taylor
