On 11/21, Jeff King wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 06:10:08PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Well, not to me X-<. This is way too aggressive a change to be made
lightly without auditing the current users of run_command API.
Yikes. Thanks for a dose of sanity. I was looking too much at just the
pager tests.
Thanks for your input, Junio. I was, too, focused only on pager side and
even more so on the bug itself.
<snip> as I have no familiarity with other parts of the code </snip>
When merged to 'seen', this literally destroys tons of tests (the
first and easiest one to observe may be t0002).
Forget 'seen'. Applying it on master shows plenty of breakages. :)
I should *probably* run the full test suite next time...
I think we should probably punt on this direction, and just make sure
that setup_pager() either reinitializes the child_process as appropriate
(as in the patch I showed in the earlier thread) or just refuses to try
running the pager twice (I didn't show a patch, but it should just be a
matter of setting a static flag).
I'm preparing v3 with the above suggestions in mind.
Cheers,
Enzo
