Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > precise, the subject could say: > > t2200,t9832: avoid using `git` upstream in a pipe > > Nit: It's subjective, but it feels a bit more natural to list the test > numbers in ascending order rather than descending order, which is why > I swapped them around in the example above. ;-) >> When a git command is upstream in a pipe, an unexpected failure of >> the git command will go unnoticed. >> >> Write out the output of the git command to a file, so as to actively >> catch a failure of the git command. > > It's easy to see from the patch itself that the output of the Git > command is now written to a file, so it's not necessary to say so in > the commit message. Therefore, the entire body of the commit message > could be written more succinctly, perhaps like this: > > Avoid placing `git` upstream in a pipe since doing so throws away > its exit code, thus an unexpected failure may go unnoticed. Yup. > The actual patch itself looks fine, and these comments about the > commit message are quite minor, thus there probably is no need to > re-roll (though feel free to do so if you think the bit of extra > polishing of the commit message is worthwhile). IIUC, the microproject experience aims new contributors to get used to the style of communication that happens during review cycles of a typical topic, using a trivial dip-the-toes-in-the-water problem as an example. I'd rather not to see contributors get into the habit of leaving loose ends and have somebody else clean after them. Thanks.
