Re: [PATCH 5/7] t0000: verify that real_path() works correctly with absolute paths

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

(4) if it only runs once at the very beginning of the test and sets
a variable that is named prominently clear what it means and lives
throughout the test, then we do not even have to say "hopefully" and
appear lazy and loose to the readers of the test who wonders what
happens when the path does exist; doing so will help reducing the
noise on the mailing list in the future.

Having said that, I really do not deeply care either way.  If you
are rerollilng the series for other changes, I wouldn't shed tears
even if I do not see any change to this part.