On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 9:04 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Taken very seriously > Thanks. -- Cheers! Amanda Shafack
