From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 22:16:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH 0/4] t: replace incorrect test_must_fail usage (part 5)
Message-ID: <20200429221611.GA12776@syl.local>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy2qet02d.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 03:10:50PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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.

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for a patient explanation.

Thanks,
Taylor