From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 22:10:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Re* [PATCH 0/4] t: replace incorrect test_must_fail usage (part 5)
Message-ID: <xmqqy2qet02d.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200429214906.GA12075@syl.local>

Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:

> To me this seems a little overkill, but it may not be on environments
> where an extra subshell incurred by 'test_might_fail' might be overly
> expensive.

It comes from the same principle as "we are not in the business of
catching segv from system tools---don't use test_must_fail on
non-git commands".  Adopting the convention happened quite some time
ago and that was why I checked if we failed to document it.

What I wondered was if it is overkill to document the convention; if
the convention was overkill is not a question at this point.