Re: t6044 broken on pu

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> writes:

> On 08.05.16 20:20, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> writes:
>>
>>> May a  simple
>>>  printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n"
>>>
>>> be an option ?
>> If you were to do that, at least have the decency to make it more
>> readable by doing something like:
>>
>> 	printf "%s\n" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> But as I said, as a response to "t6044 broken on pu" bug report,
>> s/seq/test_seq/ is the only sensible change.
>>
>> Improving "test_seq, the alternative to seq" is a separate topic.
>>
>> If you have aversion to $PERL, perhaps do them without using
>> anything what is not expected to be built-in in modern shells,
>> perhaps like this?
> Please don't get me wrong -

I don't.

> I wasn't really clear why:

So is it now clear?

The title of the bug report is "t6044 broken on pu". The analysis of
the issue is "We use 'test_seq 1 10' when we want one to ten on each
line in the output to use in test to make sure it is portable, but a
new commit forgot the portability issue and used seq instead".

The only sensible fix is "Use test_seq like everybody else".

Improving the implementation of test_seq is a totally separate
issue.  It may be a good thing to do independently to save external
program, and the effect of such change will not be limited to t6044
but all other existing users of test_seq.

And that is why it must be done as a separate topic.

Why you think it is a good idea to update t6044 with printf
"1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n" is beyond me--don't you want to
make sure that existing users of test_seq benefits the same way?