From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (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 42DDD1B86E2 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 18:41:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725043273; cv=none; b=BQf6FccJ1oCXyjk7z1zlmvM7ajYCFRTPC1oY/qTEsw3iTWytuag3YxN+Mg9T6aZDaVngUNPMuM/t26bm1wSBjkV1RTMeNQsrvvoCvZR16RittiXwqTihWNLv6NR5KZ5E73BqpBcdZcFCjEYnsMdOeKiL9NVCq2nT5Az27+Upc+U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725043273; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qcrE6cmC/m3A+ZaoSDrAGt0CB0XkZoquY0IfR+4Vm3Q=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=VMTQ7UFol45pdzIfjkK2t243DphDlqMv+AxLctR/5CxDtfKNAkhSck8vKDqI8cDcOx1mlqzOfXhlwz37+DyN7tWvzezEkOOfkK/IC5N9L9Ma8e3kyGdtMJLkMO4+of6OOh76bfhX+2cAX/mG7+5UNIq9SG3Z5YYy5g2QkMVMdwg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=GX9fr5be; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="GX9fr5be" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A55720A47; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 14:41:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=qcrE6cmC/m3A+ZaoSDrAGt0CB0XkZoquY0IfR+ 4Vm3Q=; b=GX9fr5beDO/wACVbxhOueqKqdlzr1p0MAZ4V8EYWXTcHBId7Zgeq3L e7ktr/ydsfRTSH3qB2J2SyBGNxw7nM6aWi2BOdgQwoj6rm0VYSE85RzKKGEdMV4b fu6cxYVMBF5lAIzfpzx+EI7E+ztnzC5sHG4tB7Sok5HMRVwkKX8M8= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1129020A46; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 14:41:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.94.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5869F20A45; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 14:41:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Eric Sunshine , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] chainlint: make error messages self-explanatory In-Reply-To: (Eric Sunshine's message of "Thu, 29 Aug 2024 18:04:43 -0400") References: <20240829091625.41297-1-ericsunshine@charter.net> <20240829091625.41297-2-ericsunshine@charter.net> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 11:41:08 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 6D0B5AF8-66FF-11EF-AC54-9B0F950A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Eric Sunshine writes: > How about this? > > The "?!LOOP?!" case is particularly serious because that terse > single word does nothing to convey that the loop body should end > with "|| return 1" (or "|| exit 1" in a subshell) to ensure that a > failing command in the body aborts the loop immediately, which is > important since a shell loop does not automatically terminate when > an error occurs within its body. Moreover, unlike &&-chaining > which is ubiquitous in Git tests, the "|| return 1" idiom is > relatively infrequent, thus may be harder for a newcomer to > discover by consulting nearby code. Strike ", which is important since .*\ its body." and the above reads perfect. >> > -# name and the test body with a `?!FOO?!` annotation at the location of each >> > +# name and the test body with a `?!ERR?!` annotation at the location of each >> > # detected problem, where "FOO" is a tag such as "AMP" which indicates a broken >> >> "FOO" -> "ERR"? > > Yep. Sharp eyes. OK. I'll mark the topic to be expecting a reroll for these small messaging plus "ERR" -> "ERR:" but without other larger changes mentioned in the thread. Thanks.