Re: [PATCH v2] t9832,t2200: avoid using pipes in git commands

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2020, 20:04 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqsgab7128.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cR7Hm9m1EiWkr5tKYS3r_zJf98XT7OQ+-Jt4EWkaFQTDw@mail.gmail.com>

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> precise, the subject could say:
>
>     t2200,t9832: avoid using `git` upstream in a pipe
>
> Nit: It's subjective, but it feels a bit more natural to list the test
> numbers in ascending order rather than descending order, which is why
> I swapped them around in the example above.

;-)

Show 13 quoted lines

>> When a git command is upstream in a pipe, an unexpected failure of
>> the git command will go unnoticed.
>>
>> Write out the output of the git command to a file, so as to actively
>> catch a failure of the git command.
>
> It's easy to see from the patch itself that the output of the Git
> command is now written to a file, so it's not necessary to say so in
> the commit message. Therefore, the entire body of the commit message
> could be written more succinctly, perhaps like this:
>
>     Avoid placing `git` upstream in a pipe since doing so throws away
>     its exit code, thus an unexpected failure may go unnoticed.

Yup.

> The actual patch itself looks fine, and these comments about the
> commit message are quite minor, thus there probably is no need to
> re-roll (though feel free to do so if you think the bit of extra
> polishing of the commit message is worthwhile).

IIUC, the microproject experience aims new contributors to get used to the style of communication that happens during review cycles of a typical topic, using a trivial dip-the-toes-in-the-water problem as an example. I'd rather not to see contributors get into the habit of leaving loose ends and have somebody else clean after them.

Thanks.