Am 08.01.2013 21:39, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
René Scharfe <rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx> writes:# on NetBSD with /bin/sh $ a() { echo $#-$1-$2; } $ t="x"; a "${t:+$t}" 1-x- $ t="x y"; a "${t:+$t}" 2-x-y $ t="x y"; a "${t:+x y}" 1-x y-# and with bash $ t="x y"; a "${t:+$t}" 1-x y- $ t="x y"; a "${t:+x y}" 1-x y- This may be a bug in the shell, but here's a simple workaround: Construct the description string first and store it in a variable, and then use that to call test_expect_success().Interesting. I notice that t0008 added recently to 'pu' has the same construct.
A quick check shows that subtests 64-68 and 89-93 of t0008 fail for me on Debian (10 in total) and subtests 64 and 89 fail on NetBSD (2 in total). Unlike t1402 they don't report "bug in the test script".
t0008 only uses ${:+} substitution on variables that don't contain spaces. With the test changed to store the description in a variable first I still get the same 2 failures.
There must be something else going on here. The different results are interesting, especially the higher number of failures on Debian.
René -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
