Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 09:05:15AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Still. I wonder if keeping BASH_XTRACEFD helps developers, when >> they need to diagnose a new breakage? If their new test fails only >> in the "dash -x" run but not "bash -x" at the CI, for example? > > I have done that, but usually only after realizing that "./t1234-foo.sh" > passes and "./t1234-foo.sh -x" does not. So I think just tweaking use of > "-x" would be the main tool. Ah, that's true. You only need to compare "sh -x test.sh" with "sh test.sh" with any value of "sh", especially after BASH_XTRACEFD is removed, demoting "bash" to the same state as "dash" wrt "-x". OK, I am more OK with the removal of BASH_XTRACEFD support than before ;-)
