Re: [PATCH 8/8] one ugly test to verify basic functionality

From: Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 5, 2016, 13:33 UTC
Message-ID: <CA+EOSB=UoMves8hdParcdtMGgzmx5p4RyKux_kB3SNK-Par-dw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8C2+kaPLALojJoFe+T=WoeyQ8JsB0zenDzQt3wpi9D=tw@mail.gmail.com>

2016-02-05 14:02 GMT+01:00 Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +       mv `ls .git/objects/pack/*.pack` pack &&
>>
>> No, please. From the git coding guideline : "We prefer $( ... ) for
>> command substitution; unlike ``, it properly nests.
>
> I was being too subtle with the word "ugly". I assure you this test
> cannot be merged in its current form.
>
> But that's not important. It makes me think, can we catch `..`
> automatically? I know the test suite can catch broken && command
> sequence. Maybe we can do the same for`..`?

I dunno. But it might be a good idea

Show 7 quoted lines

>
>> It should have been the way Bourne spelled it from day one, but
>> unfortunately isn't."
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4708549/whats-the-difference-between-command-and-command-in-shell-programming
> --
> Duy