Hi Elijah & Eric, On Mon, 29 Aug 2022, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 10:18 PM Eric Sunshine via GitGitGadget > <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This series fixes a failing test in t4301 due to 'sed' behavioral > > differences between implementations. It also fixes a couple broken &&-chains > > and adds missing explicit loop termination. > > > > The third patch is entirely subjective and can be dropped if unwanted. I > > spent more than a few minutes puzzling over the script's use of 'printf > > "\\n"' rather than the more typical 'printf "\n"' or even a simple 'echo', > > wondering if there was some subtlety I was missing or whether Elijah had > > encountered an unusual situation in which '\\n' was needed over '\n'. The > > third patch chooses to replace 'printf "\\n"' with 'echo' which I find more > > idiomatic, but I can see value in using 'printf "\n"' as perhaps being > > clearer that it is adding a newline where one is missing. > > I can't actually provide the reasoning for it; I took Dscho's testcase > from [1] and used it as a basis for adding several other testcases. > When I was copying & pasting and adjusting, I just didn't notice the > 'printf "\\n"'. But using a simple echo makes sense. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/3b4ed8bb1bb615277ee51a7b2af5fc53bae0a6e4.1660892256.git.gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx/ No other reason than that I _seem_ to recall having run into some issues where _some_ POSIX shell (was it BusyBox' ash?) did not like the single-escape form "\n". I have no firm recollection, though, and am fine with converting all of the double backslashes to single backslashes (read: I am very indifferent to this issue). Ciao, Dscho
