avih <avihpit@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > FWIW, the common form in this file was "[" (46 instances), > then "[[" (13 instances), and finally "test" (3 instances). Yes, that came from the fact that this file has historically been considered bash-only and our Bourne shell coding guidelines do not apply. > So I'd still think changing "[[" forms into "[" is the better choice > for this file in a compatibility-focused change, as it leaves the > file in a mostly consistent usage of "[" throughout. Absolutely. We are in agreement (I said this is a good first step). I do think making it more consistent after the dust settles (read: not before the series graduates to 'master') would be a good idea, though.
