Re: Re* [PATCH 0/4] t: replace incorrect test_must_fail usage (part 5)

> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> > To me this seems a little overkill, but it may not be on environments
> > where an extra subshell incurred by 'test_might_fail' might be overly
> > expensive.
>
> It comes from the same principle as "we are not in the business of
> catching segv from system tools---don't use test_must_fail on
> non-git commands".  Adopting the convention happened quite some time
> ago and that was why I checked if we failed to document it.
>
> What I wondered was if it is overkill to document the convention; if
> the convention was overkill is not a question at this point.