On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 8:25 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 10:42 AM Amanda Shafack via GitGitGadget > <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > t9832,t2200: avoid using pipes in git commands > > The subject is a bit confusing since pipes aren't used in Git > commands; instead, Git commands may be components of pipes. However, > even that is too imprecise. The issue this patch is addressing is that > we want to avoid Git commands _upstream_ in a pipe. It's perfectly > acceptable for the Git command to be the final element of a pipe since > the pipe returns the exit code of the final command. So, to be more > 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. > I agree it looks more appropriate. > > 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. > > 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). I believe it's best practice to optimize one's work as much as possible, so I have included these changes. Thanks for the detailed explanation. > Thanks. -- Cheers! Amanda Shafack
