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

From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Apr 29, 2020, 22:41 UTC
Message-ID: <20200429224121.GA18172@syl.local>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqsggludg6.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 03:36:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> > Hmm. I say this as somebody who just re-rolled a series to add two
> > 'test_might_fail umask 022' lines, so am a little disappointed to learn
> > that this is not considered to be idiomatic.
> > ...
> > Junio: do you want another reroll of that series? :/
>
> The one I saw and remember was two new umask calls protected in POSIXPERM
> prerequisite but without test-might-fail involved.
>
> Perhaps there is nothing to reroll?  Or perhaps I am not checking my
> mailbox often enough?

You are checking your mailbox often enough, but unfortunately my memory isn't as good as I thought ;). You're right: those calls are in POSIXPERM-only tests, and don't have a 'test_might_fail' in front of them as such.

That was easy ;).

Thanks, Taylor