Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] t3301: use test_must_fail instead of !

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Feb 19, 2009, 00:46 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0902190142440.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20090219003727.GA25808@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Hi,

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Jeff King wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:53:37PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > > Really? Are they not easily replaced with
> > > 
> > > -test cond1 -a cond2 -o cond3
> > > +test cond1 && test cond2 || test cond3
> > 
> > ...which is substantially harder to read.
> 
> I don't agree that it is harder to read, but that is beside the point.
> What is important is whether or not the construct is portable enough to
> meet git's standards.
> 
> "-a" and "-o" are XSI extensions to POSIX, which is usually a sign that
> there may be problems. However, besides posh (which at this point I
> think can be considered a compliance-testing shell and not an actual
> shell in use), I haven't heard of problems in practice. Even FreeBSD's
> ash derivative supports it (along with parentheses).
> 
> So I don't think it needs to be changed (which is what I said in my
> original message). But I also think saying "-a and -o are necessary" is
> not true; they can be replaced if it turns out to be a problem.

Even if they were in POSIX, I'd suggest not to change the constructs. rebase is _bound_ to be built in.

Even if Stephan is not a fan of my recent changes to rebase -i -p (which I will present on this list once they all work as I want them to), I think I can talk him into continuing the sequencer effort: he was not discussing the design in the open, so he should have expected the process to be dragged out.

Therefore, any changes to git-rebase--interactive (or for that matter, git-rebase) before the sequencer would be wasted work.

Ciao, Dscho