Re: [PATCH 1/2] git-subtree: Bail out if we find output from Rust rewrite [and 1 more messages]

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Hi.  Thanks for the review.  I'll go through it point by point:
>
> Colin Stagner writes ("Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-subtree: Bail out if we find output from Rust rewrite (test)"):
>> It may be slightly faster to create only one repo and just make orphan 
>> branches, like `test_create_subtree_add()` does.
> ...
>> `test_commit()` from test-lib-functions.sh may be superior to manually 
>> writing and committing this file.
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.  I'll take a look.

So, is there a conclusion after reviewing this?

I think this is the only thing outstanding item among the review
comments this thread received.  Specifically, regarding the use of
'local' discussed in the thread, our coding guidelines explicitly
state:

 - Even though "local" is not part of POSIX, we make heavy use of it
   in our test suite.  We do not use it in scripted Porcelains, and
   hopefully nobody starts using "local" before all shells that matter
   support it (notably, ksh from AT&T Research does not support it yet).

Thus, we are fine there.

Just responding belatedly as I was scanning topics that are marked
as "Expecting a reroll" in my draft copy of the "What's cooking"
report that I work from.

Thanks.