Re: [PATCH v2] CodingGuidelines: explicitly allow "local" for test scripts

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: May 5, 2021, 17:18 UTC
Message-ID: <6092d36c6d1a8_1d245208a4@natae.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <YJKo02fG/riIetpu@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:59:02PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Indeed. But it also probably doesn't meet many other needs. A quick
> > check shows 54 failed tests just on t0000-basic.sh. I don't think it's
> > something we should even consider.
> 
> Yeah, we have visited this off and on over the years (links below).
> There are some modernized ksh variants that work OK (like mksh), but I
> think we've declared ksh93 as not worth it.

Just to clarify what was said on that thread: ksh93 is not a version. There is at least ksh93u+ and ksh93v-, which are *completely* different.

-- 
Felipe Contreras