Re: [PATCH] t4014: shell portability fix

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 09:57:06AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > Maybe:
> >
> >     We sometimes get around this by using env, like:
> >
> >       test_must_fail env FOO=BAR some-program
> >
> >     But that works for test_must_fail because it further runs its
> >     arguments via the shell, so we can stick the "env" on the right-hand
> >     side of the function. It would not work to do:
> >
> >       env FOO=BAR test_must_fail some-program
> >
> >     because env does not know about our shell functions...
> >
> > is more clear?
> 
> I don't know.  What I wanted to say was that "test_must_fail env"
> pattern works _only_ when some-program is not a shell function, even
> though "test_must_fail some-program" itself without env is OK when
> some-program is a shell function.

Right, but I think that is taking it to a meta-level. We are already
talking about one shell function, test_must_fail versus test_commit.
Introducing another one in the test_must_fail to the right of "env"
obviously does not work, but that is independent of whether
test_must_fail is in use.

-Peff