Re: [PATCH 1/2] t1404: add a bunch of tests of D/F conflicts

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 29, 2017, 00:05 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqk1zebyxz.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20171028164249.ufro5weobwadfonv@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>

"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:

> There is discussion in the Austin Group issue tracker about adding this
> feature to POSIX, but it's gotten bogged down over lexical versus
> dynamic scoping.  Everyone agrees that it's a desirable feature, though.
> ...

In short, unless you are a binary packager on a platform whose native shell is ksh and who refuses to depend on tools that are not default/native on the platform, you'd be OK?

> I'd recommend an explicit test for this.  It's much easier to track down
> that way than seeing other failure scenarios.  People will also usually
> complain about failing tests.

Hopefully.

Starting from an explicit test, gradually using more "local" in tests that cover more important parts of the system, and then start using "local" as appropriate in the main tools would be a good way forward.

By that time, we might have a lot less scripted Porcelains, though ;-)