From: David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:21:11 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/20] t/t5000-tar-tree.sh: avoid "test <cond> -a/-o <cond>"
Message-ID: <20140610192110.GA72977@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140610184913.GD72751@gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:49:15AM -0700, David Aguilar wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 07:55:58AM -0700, Elia Pinto wrote:
> > The construct is error-prone; "test" being built-in in most modern
> > shells, the reason to avoid "test <cond> && test <cond>" spawning
> > one extra process by using a single "test <cond> -a <cond>" no
> > longer exists.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  t/t5000-tar-tree.sh |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh b/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh
> > index 74fc5a8..ad6fa0d 100755
> > --- a/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh
> > +++ b/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ check_tar() {
> >  			for header in *.paxheader
> >  			do
> >  				data=${header%.paxheader}.data &&
> > -				if test -h $data -o -e $data
> > +				if test -h $data || test -e $data
> >  				then
> 
> This looks okay, but it raises a question for the original author
> (René, I think that's you so I've added you to the To: line).

Just following up -- I got a bounce from René's email address.

> 
> Should that be "test -f" instead of "test -e"?

It does seem like this should be "test -f" nonetheless.
Sorry for the noise.

> This is a very minor note and should not block this patch.
-- 
David