On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Philip Hands <phil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> What seems to be missing in the patch is a comment line, above the >> stanza, explaining why the code uses "exec". > > My reading of the presence of "exec" there was: > > We're assuming that the current shell may not be to our liking, so > there seems to be little point keeping it in memory solely so it can > at worst somehow get in the way of a clean exit. > > Does that really need a comment? I'm not sure I can make a succinct > explanation of what's going on for anyone that doesn't already know what > exec does. Feel free to make suggestions though. That is _precisely_ why it needs a comment. It's a selection of a particular technology for a particular reason that someone may not understand as important without having to dig back to a thread or bug report like this. For example: # Use "exec sh -c" to ensure POSIX compliant scripting, especially for fish and tcsh users [ "$DRY_RUN" ] || printf '%s\n' "$NEW_IDS" | ssh "$@" " ..... _______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev