On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 09:05:44AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > In short, unless you are a binary packager on a platform whose > native shell is ksh and who refuses to depend on tools that are not > default/native on the platform, you'd be OK?
Yes. > > I'd recommend an explicit test for this. It's much easier to track down > > that way than seeing other failure scenarios. People will also usually > > complain about failing tests. > > Hopefully. > > Starting from an explicit test, gradually using more "local" in > tests that cover more important parts of the system, and then start > using "local" as appropriate in the main tools would be a good way > forward. I completely agree. I just wanted to ensure that if we failed, it was at least obvious to packagers who ran the tests. I'm not sure there's anything we can do if people don't run them. I do think people may run the tests more frequently than you think, though. I always do in my packaging at $DAYJOB, but any failures (usually missing SANITY) tend to already be patched by the time I get off work and write a patch. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
