From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15452C35280 for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 01:17:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B956D208DB for ; Fri, 8 May 2020 01:17:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="g0NptN4r" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726948AbgEHBR3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2020 21:17:29 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:64871 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726495AbgEHBR2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2020 21:17:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787A0459FF; Thu, 7 May 2020 21:17:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=ZJWchw7s+b1U FuGA1eEhlTrGudw=; b=g0NptN4ri3srgCcyvSkIa4SvHLXugBtysebFwmO4og/x zNEhyoW10e85yMibCRzB6cO3J0LXL9t7HZf4BCUGNa5eAc2MwS8914LpEwFlkv4H 0hWITmsbzzAkNPv95gm1g528RYZe5XvkVew/FzyXkSgr6EcBC0rANvpFZzLnfvk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=e+8+so 3ZtIaiUL9RrR3xD/CcU9fDcvR4Nb7SJeHq2/+bLOInTh5SOqC3LT8HPPYjeJKZ3j PxuYdRv33JT4GCI/zy2dMBG7Cl1HaZeKECxEm7O9GgUMKLbHP/0S9mgDMkrMUdy2 zTvszEPutXdeKCvriDSD1YqrEcmSMuouG0cb8= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70490459FE; Thu, 7 May 2020 21:17:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (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 ED3D8459FC; Thu, 7 May 2020 21:17:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Carlo Marcelo Arenas =?utf-8?Q?Bel=C3=B3n?= Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org, congdanhqx@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] t/test_lib: avoid naked bash arrays in file_lineno References: <20200507055118.69971-1-carenas@gmail.com> <20200508005817.GA24664@Carlos-MBP> Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 18:17:25 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200508005817.GA24664@Carlos-MBP> ("Carlo Marcelo Arenas =?utf-8?Q?Bel=C3=B3n=22's?= message of "Thu, 7 May 2020 17:58:17 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: AD61F8CA-90C9-11EA-AAD8-D1361DBA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Carlo Marcelo Arenas Bel=C3=B3n writes: > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 09:52:12PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> On Wed, 6 May 2020, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Bel=C3=B3n wrote: >> > >> > Enclose the bash specific code inside an eval to avoid parsing error= s >> > and while at it, simplify the logic so that instead of traversing th= e >> > callstack just pop the two topmost entries that are required. >>=20 >> I would be okay with that, but that's not what the patch does: > > FWIW that was the intention, but luckily Junio quickly predicted it was > most likely buggy and so has been since made obsolete by: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20200507175706.19986-1-carenas@gmail.com/ Heh, don't give me too much credit. I just noticed that they cannot be implementing the same thing, but I couldn't tell if the new behaviour was something you two agreed to be better, and asked for a clarification. In any case, the "just protect with eval '' block to avoid hurting other shells" version should be the first step. Improving it further is a separate topic. Thanks.