On 2020-05-28 at 15:54:49, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Yes, that is what I meant. I'm glad to know my question has been > > answered and things work. I'm okay with the patch as it is in that > > case, although I'd give bonus points for mentioning that this syntax > > doesn't regress bash. > > True. And we would want to also have tested-by on more recent > versions of bash, no? Sure, such testing would be welcome, but I believe those are tested with our tests on most platforms. macOS is special because it uses the last GPLv2 version of bash, which is less capable in some ways. I assumed that bash would not be more likely to break here in newer versions, but perhaps I shouldn't make that assumption. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
