Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] check-non-portable-shell: suggest alternative for `VAR=val shell-func`

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 9:11 AM Rubén Justo <rjusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 04:15:21AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > -             err '"FOO=bar shell_func" is not portable';
> > +             err '"FOO=bar shell_func" is not portable (use test_env FOO=bar shell_func)';
>
> When someone blames this line in the future, the message of this commit
> will appear and be informative.  However, I think the message of the
> previous patch [3/5], which also touches this line, would also be
> relevant for this context.  And it won't be so obvious to get to that
> message.  Therefore, it might be worth combining this commit with the
> previous one.  But I'm not sure the change is worth it to have a new
> iteration of this series.

I did consider combining the two patches but decided against it.
Despite the fact that both patches touch the same line/message, they
really are two distinct "fixes" as evidenced by the fact that the
explanation provided by each commit message is entirely orthogonal to
the other.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux