Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] check-non-portable-shell: suggest alternative for `VAR=val shell-func`

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Jul 26, 2024, 19:31 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPig+cTKnWjaTkh_TwCKqu9Yks9KwOfe_+3xON+ErGYucLny9g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9d96b89f-f4e4-49f4-aa59-2c229d3988e4@gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 9:11 AM Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 04:15:21AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > -             err '"FOO=bar shell_func" is not portable';
> > +             err '"FOO=bar shell_func" is not portable (use test_env FOO=bar shell_func)';
>
> When someone blames this line in the future, the message of this commit
> will appear and be informative.  However, I think the message of the
> previous patch [3/5], which also touches this line, would also be
> relevant for this context.  And it won't be so obvious to get to that
> message.  Therefore, it might be worth combining this commit with the
> previous one.  But I'm not sure the change is worth it to have a new
> iteration of this series.

I did consider combining the two patches but decided against it. Despite the fact that both patches touch the same line/message, they really are two distinct "fixes" as evidenced by the fact that the explanation provided by each commit message is entirely orthogonal to the other.