Re: [PATCHv6 16/16] Introduce portable_unset and use it to ensure proper && chaining

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 4, 2010, 07:52 UTC
Message-ID: <7vy6ae8kdi.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20101004044402.GF24884@burratino>

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>>                         I don't know if we came to an agreement on
>> using test_might_fail for non-builtins
>
> Non-builtins: okay.
> Non-git commands: no.
>
> That's just my take, though; if the project consensus is different,
> who am I to resist it?

Hmm, the pros and cons between allowing test_might_fail on normal commands vs introducing cmd_might_fail are questionable, though. I cannot think of a case where we would want to tolerate death by signal or segv on non git commands by using cmd_might_fail. At least I do not think that is a common thing we would want to ignore, and in a rare case, it probably is a good idea to say that explicitly with something like...

	{
        	frotz
                : the above might randomly segfault but we do not care
	}