Re: t6044 broken on pu

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 9, 2016, 18:26 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqr3dbulyp.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160509161226.GB11861@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 29 quoted lines

> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:02:45PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>
>> > I had that thought, too, but I think it would be an error to do so.
>> > test_seq is supposed to be a replacement for "seq", which does not
>> > understand non-numeric sequences.
>> 
>> Although, the comment block just above test_seq() in
>> test-lib-functions.sh says otherwise:
>> 
>>     Print a sequence of numbers or letters in increasing order.  This
>>     is similar to GNU seq(1), but the latter might not be available
>>     everywhere (and does not do letters).  It may be used like:
>> 
>>     for i in $(test_seq 100)
>>     do
>>         for j in $(test_seq 10 20)
>>         do
>>             for k in $(test_seq a z)
>>             do
>>                 echo $i-$j-$k
>>             done
>>         done
>>     done
>
> Oh, indeed. I apparently even Acked that documentation once upon a time. :-/
>
> Anyway, I double-checked my earlier "grep" and I do not think anybody is
> using that functionality. So I think we'd be OK to change it as long as
> we updated the documentation to match.

Yes, I think the comment should just go. Nobody used that alphabet form since it was written in d17cf5f3 (tests: Introduce test_seq, 2012-08-04).

> I don't really care either way whether it is replaced or not (at one
> point there were some people really interested in NO_PERL not even using
> one-liners in the test suite, but I am not one of them).

Neither am I, but I think it is prudent to drop that "letters". The comment even says the letter form is not portable already, so the mention of GNU seq(1) is not helping at all.