Re: [PATCH 1/2] t1404: add a bunch of tests of D/F conflicts

"brian m. carlson" [off-list ref] writes:

There is discussion in the Austin Group issue tracker about adding this
feature to POSIX, but it's gotten bogged down over lexical versus
dynamic scoping.  Everyone agrees that it's a desirable feature, though.
...

In short, unless you are a binary packager on a platform whose
native shell is ksh and who refuses to depend on tools that are not
default/native on the platform, you'd be OK?

I'd recommend an explicit test for this.  It's much easier to track down
that way than seeing other failure scenarios.  People will also usually
complain about failing tests.

Hopefully.  

Starting from an explicit test, gradually using more "local" in
tests that cover more important parts of the system, and then start
using "local" as appropriate in the main tools would be a good way
forward.  

By that time, we might have a lot less scripted Porcelains, though
;-)