Re: [PATCH 00/29] t: detect and fix broken &&-chains in subshells

Eric Sunshine [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:38 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I first looked at 29/29 and got heavily inclined to reject that
step, and then continued reading from 1/29 to around 15/29.

I like these earlier changes that fix existing breakage, of course.
I also like many of the changes that simplify and/or modernise the
test scripts very much, but they are unusable as-is as long as their
justification is "chain-lint will start barfing on these constructs".

Sorry, I'm having difficulty understanding.

Are you saying that you don't want patches which exist merely to
pacify --chain-lint? (For instance, 2/29 "t0001: use "{...}" block
around "||" expression rather than subshell".)

Yes.

Or are you saying that you don't like how the commit messages are
worded, and that they should instead emphasize that the change is good
for its own sake, without mentioning --chain-lint?

Yes, too.

For example, 03/29 is a good clean-up, and its value is not
diminished even if we reject the subprocess munging --chain-lint in
29/29.

As opposed to 02/29 which mostly is about appeasing the "shell
parser" in 29/29 (or you could justify it saying "one less fork and
process" if that gives us a measurable benefit).