On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 09:29:44AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Taylor Blau [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Given this and the above, I would probably err on the side of
designating this as 'test_lazy_prereq' or otherwise silencing the output
of 'test_cmp' so that this does not taint the TAP output.

We can argue the merit and demerit with a good log message.  The
central issue at hand is how precious 52a9 in the script lost by
this patch is (in other words, are we checking more than "is our
char signed or unsigned?").

Ultimately, I don't mind much which way we go. But if we want to retain
this, would you mind sending a rewritten v2, Taylor? I feel like you're
in a better position to argue why we should retain it.

Thanks!

Patrick