Hi, On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:53:37PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > Really? Are they not easily replaced with > > > > > > -test cond1 -a cond2 -o cond3 > > > +test cond1 && test cond2 || test cond3 > > > > ...which is substantially harder to read. > > I don't agree that it is harder to read, but that is beside the point. > What is important is whether or not the construct is portable enough to > meet git's standards. > > "-a" and "-o" are XSI extensions to POSIX, which is usually a sign that > there may be problems. However, besides posh (which at this point I > think can be considered a compliance-testing shell and not an actual > shell in use), I haven't heard of problems in practice. Even FreeBSD's > ash derivative supports it (along with parentheses). > > So I don't think it needs to be changed (which is what I said in my > original message). But I also think saying "-a and -o are necessary" is > not true; they can be replaced if it turns out to be a problem. Even if they were in POSIX, I'd suggest not to change the constructs. rebase is _bound_ to be built in. Even if Stephan is not a fan of my recent changes to rebase -i -p (which I will present on this list once they all work as I want them to), I think I can talk him into continuing the sequencer effort: he was not discussing the design in the open, so he should have expected the process to be dragged out. Therefore, any changes to git-rebase--interactive (or for that matter, git-rebase) before the sequencer would be wasted work. Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
