[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Avoid possible false negatives in cond46.test.

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid possible false negatives in cond46.test.
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:13:46 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-10-28)

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 10:30:19PM CEST:
> At Sunday 11 April 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Being verbose is fine for things that are unobvious, but you may
> >  assume that developers know
> Quite right.  However, as you said when discussing my proposed patch 
> enabling `set -e' in all test scripts, the behaviour of the `errexit' 
> shell flag can vary wildly among different shells in unusual situations, 
> and is generally quite bug-prone when control structures or complex 
> commands are involved.  The more detailed analysis contained in the 
> git commit message tried to show (by static code inspection only) that 
> no bug should have cropped up in the test case in question.  However, 
> if you deem that such an analysis is not required, I'll be happy to 
> oblige in future similar patches.  Really happy indeed ;-)

The analysis is required in any case.  That doesn't mean it is necessary
to mention it in the log message; because even if the analysis is hard
work, in this case it is straight-forward.  IOW, the size of the log
message doesn't have to reflect the amount of work done for the patch.

If you feel your work needs more representation, that can be done by
different means.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]