From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] am: learn passing -b to mailinfo Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:52:59 +0100 Message-ID: <8762ghxpxw.fsf@thomas.inf.ethz.ch> References: <19539098c07a207f3bd24f5a145ba3b6c5e46766.1326312730.git.trast@student.ethz.ch> <7vzkdt4s9l.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jan 12 09:53:11 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RlGPF-0002aD-Cq for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:53:11 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752896Ab2ALIxF (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:53:05 -0500 Received: from edge20.ethz.ch ([82.130.99.26]:9677 "EHLO edge20.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751794Ab2ALIxD (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:53:03 -0500 Received: from CAS10.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.210) by edge20.ethz.ch (82.130.99.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:53:00 +0100 Received: from thomas.inf.ethz.ch.ethz.ch (129.132.153.233) by cas10.d.ethz.ch (172.31.38.210) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:53:00 +0100 In-Reply-To: <7vzkdt4s9l.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:35:34 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Originating-IP: [129.132.153.233] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > Thomas Rast writes: > >> @@ -571,8 +574,8 @@ then >> else >> utf8=-n >> fi >> -if test "$(cat "$dotest/keep")" = t >> -then >> +keep=$(cat "$dotest/keep") >> +if test "$keep" = t >> keep=-k >> fi > > Curious. > > Who writes 't' to $dotest/keep after this patch is applied? Nobody; like the commit message says, I was just trying to help users upgrading from one version to the next in the middle of an 'am', which almost worked except for > I suspect that this patch was not tested in a way to exercise this > codepath; shell would have barfed when seeing the lack of "then" here, no? (ouch) > I also do not want to worry about "echo" portability issues that may come > from an existing > > echo "$keep" >"$dotest/keep" > > that this patch does not touch. Good point, thanks. I'll reroll with printf. Should I keep the upgrade path compatibility? -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch