From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b3-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D56B42701BB for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2026 08:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.154 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776326605; cv=none; b=SOUF1dH35/IxjKu89dLRXAPh0DhdI7GT9fN8g3snAq6gMp2AZsVqoyjVpee14+iVKS3pdnu+++zHOnx83fnsO4dIYF1GjA9Z8uuye7EAY0+ZsOESkRomqr/xxQSDnr1TXmw2+iWAAJHH0fmr3UtV6oztSFCcxapzwDckrBbXZHo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776326605; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mPqlrYE3aCKDK1K/Gouy55lXXQatoM7b8J2DFTs6gpg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qbm9Yg+khCVpyZIu+35bFOE4v7OQASY+ryInyW/+sXOokfIpmVWcBlKhEB0WeGBsYWmOVD3U2BL4DWZcqZpFLJrUvakGvXbkwMXzLqbXQi1ckCsQ3rvhcS16GQNvRuE984Dv2v+DiM3OVGjgO2krMiHAulFJWWT76Jwjawzyn/s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=t6CBKBZ5; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=Vje7ateB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.154 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="t6CBKBZ5"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="Vje7ateB" Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017287A019B; Thu, 16 Apr 2026 04:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-04 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 16 Apr 2026 04:03:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1776326602; x=1776413002; bh=r2Q4ICNc5h cXrlJG6hpP38c720jy3KX7u6n/eCOdy+Y=; b=t6CBKBZ5I7E6OkveQnJ76j+FNV KobUVaBlJZ0XgfpbXqqDy0u6eZt48I6GNMRjPRG1ceFcCBOZgEv0t/zanCoflaMK 8Ibz1krydXErux92//lAjjfwBcRD051E2fIBgIly8HEfqty+CA0qOMruHTeS3z1c 1O6p8q8ak4yV7F848/mb/8ySdxlLI38ZX4yFngYlO6KTMvBTGwATI99T5ZBjr6pJ +s6NRp+jKpZIPzPYz7mjkHnW8kg9RPNFRSf62tMzwKX7cKtbpf2SuiAXkeokegXs 8elQPmZgfj43FaWuCJRySRuGl5CyBqxjAhTd/WJ5ikOOY9SuJl9phy/J6/Wg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1776326602; x=1776413002; bh=r2Q4ICNc5hcXrlJG6hpP38c720jy3KX7u6n /eCOdy+Y=; b=Vje7ateBoio7mOpHrW12SkM1QbB8n2HZFvYMEXVs7dme14pywU/ EXGHf0nJS5qjy6hJFUO8BLD6P5Kt8UaqL+i5RZQWZmPE515znkaEj+nNdMDLEfSf fouX0yF/YSwPGq0HeRa1Un9KKh7eiUd670i8E2yP/GogxGr3zdlIiNVYfEdaCQMK vlSHISH9Jts0GA+quBnn+9I1cdIPr7iGU5NnSqJR00Suw09TlFEsU2Sysstdi+pI NR3AVCPfAofGD8P67oisdut1gPh3LdOPlBukBbgQQgB7ahT6CdVw68U3HdI9htU6 UukMF9FKjMBBbvzjXdeu/owiUPx1s/gfclw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefhedrtddtgdegieegjecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttd dtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgtkhcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhssehpkhhs rdhimheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveekkeffhfeitdeludeigfejtdetvdelvdduhe fgueegudfghfeukefhjedvkedtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghm pehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepfedpmhhoug gvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphgvfhhfsehpvghffhdrnhgvthdprhgtphht thhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvg hrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 16 Apr 2026 04:03:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 3ec851dd (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Thu, 16 Apr 2026 08:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 10:03:17 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Jeff King Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] t: prepare execution of potentially failing commands for `set -e` Message-ID: References: <20260413-b4-pks-tests-with-set-e-v1-0-5b83763a0e84@pks.im> <20260413-b4-pks-tests-with-set-e-v1-6-5b83763a0e84@pks.im> <20260414220347.GA3475127@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260414225206.GA3486072@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260414230810.GA3528448@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20260416054924.GB646814@coredump.intra.peff.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260416054924.GB646814@coredump.intra.peff.net> On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 01:49:24AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 08:48:15AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > > > Personally, I am still skeptical that all of this is worth it versus > > > just checking stderr. > > > > Yeah, the more I dive into this topic the more sceptical I get, as well, > > as shells behave wildly different around `set -e`. So I'm starting to > > feel somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of blanket-enabling it for all > > shells, as that will for sure lead to lots of fallout on platforms that > > we're not testing. > > > > Maybe we should really only do this for an allow-listed set of shells. > > Starting with Bash 5 and newer might be good enough, and given that we > > use Bash for some of our CI jobs we can assume that this would weed out > > failures anyway. > > Yeah, an allow-list is probably much better than trying to come up with > a list of buggy shells. But that only helps with portability. > > I'm still concerned that this approach is going to create extra friction > for test writers down the road. This series needed to clean up several > spots to avoid false positives, and some of the spots were non-trivial. > > Now that was the accumulated cruft of 20 years of test-writing, so it's > not clear to me how often new test-writers will run into this. But when > they do, I worry that it may be hard to even figure out what is going > on. > > But I've said as much in earlier rounds, and I'm not sure Junio agrees. > So we can note my dissent in the captain's log, and I can reserve the > right to told-you-so later if need be. ;) I don't necessarily disagree with your take, I do think this has the potential to cause some pain. I guess the question is _how_ painful it will get, and whether that additional pain is worth it to help us avoid silent breakage like we recently had. So I'd take a "merge and see" approach here, and if we ever notice that it's too annoying we simply revert the last commit that introduced `set -e`. It doesn't have to be a one-way decision. Patrick