From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Nieder Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] t6030 (bisect): work around Mac OS X "ls" Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:16:26 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: References: <200807240757.26290.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <20080724060647.GA24587@glandium.org> <20080724165434.GA26660@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Christian Couder , git@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Hommey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jul 24 20:18:22 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KM5OJ-0000iJ-Eq for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:18:15 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751575AbYGXSQy (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:16:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751366AbYGXSQy (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:16:54 -0400 Received: from smtp01.uchicago.edu ([128.135.12.77]:47040 "EHLO smtp01.uchicago.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751249AbYGXSQx (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:16:53 -0400 Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by smtp01.uchicago.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6OIGSp0032351; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:16:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (jrnieder@localhost) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id m6OIGSes017922; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:16:28 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: harper.uchicago.edu: jrnieder owned process doing -bs In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jonathan Nieder wrote: > - test_must_fail ls .git/BISECT_* && > + case $(echo .git/BISECT_*) in *\*) ;; *) false ;; esac && Actually, if we want to go that route, I prefer the version Dscho gave. So please ignore my patch v3; I'd rather people choose between Christian's and Dscho's suggestions. Personally, without knowing how much time avoiding the ls saves, I am not sure which is best. Certainly the version with "ls" is clearer, which is most important; but if the time savings (of avoiding such constructs generally) are significant, then that is very much worthwhile - a faster test suite can be run more often. Jonathan