From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: t6044 broken on pu Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 11:22:39 -0700 Message-ID: References: <7d747193-7ba1-e274-86dc-427ed0f124c9@web.de> <878tzmrrfg.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <5618208c-ce45-d65c-abf8-498cfe0f2f84@web.de> <6871653f-248f-ef9a-1947-0ed88783ad8b@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Andreas Schwab , newren@gmail.com, Git Mailing List To: Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 09 20:22:48 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1azppP-0004yK-87 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 09 May 2016 20:22:47 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751447AbcEISWn convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2016 14:22:43 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57161 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750941AbcEISWm convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2016 14:22:42 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367CC189CF; Mon, 9 May 2016 14:22:41 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=LbZgsr0tzEcB HmB6vZ7gq6XhZ+Q=; b=WpYLekKtcbwdFdZzebNEZHVWKl3Kz/jMM9qO122N6Fcw JqWgSaH33b2FUi/z3qXD2tDHqCCiTwns4o0iYe0MZ4YIi6oI3BxnUIas9sKpZnMN ohImavOhrcgrpMddgWEgPaR83NkbTtviNlUp13SNcxzYeBjvmjemfqp/CiKT+rg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Sybi8/ ZgK+LVIJZaVrKBCz2ODU8PmzlaIddOet6N4PJEIgyxugevhQhJrleWKcWVhqNBb6 fcRkiUAtRwLASSxdM5eo8DKTwsRBNBamg7LsUzmARHhiEgWqcqnFW72zXAOhJwtj x8Tcy1tl0vMulxM/GeRSomUAaoib6MCG1q614= Received: from pb-smtp1. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB57189CE; Mon, 9 May 2016 14:22:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E770189CD; Mon, 9 May 2016 14:22:40 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <6871653f-248f-ef9a-1947-0ed88783ad8b@web.de> ("Torsten =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6gershausen=22's?= message of "Mon, 9 May 2016 06:43:30 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 03E0B49C-1613-11E6-9D68-9A9645017442-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Torsten B=C3=B6gershausen writes: > On 08.05.16 20:20, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Torsten B=C3=B6gershausen 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?