From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 20:52:49 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] t*: avoid using pipes
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kZhfRiUQndEGB=b34WMCPv0KDjpDix0Ly85aFeyOQAwWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3026648b-a26c-bc67-62dc-170217d6c2ca@kdbg.org>

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:

> Welcome to the Git community!

>
> Actually, being a *micro* project, it should stay so. Not doing all of the
> changes would leave some tasks for other apprentices to get warm with our
> review process.

right, so just pick one file.


> Thank you, Stefan, for digging out one particularly interesting case.
>
>> When looking at the content, the conversion seems a bit mechanical
>> (which is fine for a micro project), such as:
>> ...
>> - test "$(git show --pretty=format:%s | head -n 1)" = "one"
>> + test "$(git show --pretty=format:%s >out && head -n 1 <out)" = "one"
>> ...
>>
>> specifically for the "head" command I don't think it makes a
>> difference in correctness whether you pipe the file into the tool
>> or give the filename, i.e.  "head -n 1 out" would work just as fine.
>
>
> True, but!
>
> The intent of removing git invocations from the upstream of a pipe is that a
> failure exit code is able to stop a && chain.

Doh! I was so fixated over discussing whether to use "<" or not,
to miss looking for the actual goal.

Thanks for spotting!
Stefan