On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 07:20:01PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 08:44:20PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote: > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 02:02:34PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > ... > > > It also doesn't like looping on find results in patch 4[2], though that > > is not related to your change, so leave it and I'll fix it later? > > Does it really mean _to fix_ rather than _to "fix"_? I mean how do we know that > shellcheck is 100% correct tool and has no bugs? > How do we know anything? In this case you can read the description of the faults, which I had linked, and see if that makes sense to you. And we test the fixed code to ensure it still works as intended. I'm not claiming shellcheck is fool-proof, or 100% correct, or 100% complete, but it is more available and repeatable than Andy's Eyeballs. And if we do find bugs in it we can always fix those too. As I stated earlier, if you have a better metric to use then I'm more than happy to compare, but so far shellcheck seems a reasonable option to me. Cheers, Kent.