On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 01:15:05AM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 12:44 AM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 02:29:26PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > > Perhaps a test_unexport() might be handy in the distant future, but > > > presently there is only a single call to test_export() in the entire > > > suite, so it's probably not worth worrying about now. > > > > I actually wonder if we could drop test_export entirely. I assume you > > mean the call in p0001. It is inside a test_expect_success block, where > > we don't need to do anything fancier than just "export". It is already > > running in the main script's environment, just like a normal test. If it > > were in a test_perf, then we would need to take special care to get it > > back into the main script. > > Considering that test_export() hasn't seen much use since its > introduction nine years ago and that the one and only existing call > doesn't even need the special subprocess magic, retiring the function > is certainly an option. On the other hand, aside from this one minor > portability fix, it hasn't been a maintenance burden and may actually > come in handy someday if people start writing more "perf" tests. So, I > don't feel strongly one way or the other, though I lean somewhat > toward keeping it around. That more or less matches my feeling. I just like deleting things. ;) -Peff
