Re: [GSoC][PATCH v3] test: avoid pipes in git related commands for test

From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Pratik Karki <predatoramigo@gmail.com>, Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GSoC][PATCH v3] test: avoid pipes in git related commands for test
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:45:06 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPig+cQ1KSL8LreoE7waBzqz2V1N0rwLujDCM82nqTdgF=MC3g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqo9jhpadh.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Pratik Karki <predatoramigo@gmail.com> writes:
>> The changes in patch increased from v1 to v2 because I
>> got excited to work in Git codebase and I tried to
>> fix the exisiting problems as much as possible.
>> Hence, the large number of changes.
>
> Eric understands why the scope was increased between the two; he
> explained why it is not a good idea to increase the scope in the
> middle, and I tend to agree with his reasoning.  The reason why the
> scope was increased does not matter.

Thanks, Junio. I had just started writing a review of v3 when your
review arrived, and you covered every point I was going to make, thus
saved me the effort. I agree with everything in your review.

One additional comment, Pratik, is that this patch seems to be based
upon a slightly old version of the Git source code, thus does not
apply cleanly to present-day 'master'. Before re-rolling, update to
the latest Git and rebase your patch atop it.

>> -     PACK5=$( git rev-list --objects "$LIST" "$LI" "$ST" | \
>> -             git pack-objects test-5 ) &&
>> -     PACK6=$( (
>> +     git rev-list --objects "$LIST" "$LI" "$ST" >actual &&
>> +     PACK5=$( git pack-objects test-5 <actual ) &&
>> +     PACK6=$((
>
> I thought that Eric already pointed out and explained why this
> change to PACK6 is wrong in the previous round?

I probably should have been more explicit by naming PACK6 directly.
Comparing v3 against v2, I see that Pratik probably misunderstood my
comment, thinking that I was talking about losing the whitespace
inside PACK5=$(...); v2 dropped that whitespace and v3 restored it.

Pratik, dropping the unnecessary whitespace inside PACK5=$(...) is
fine (no complaint about that), but changing PACK6=$( (...) ) to
PACK6=$((...)) is outright incorrect as explained in [1].

[1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/CAPig+cTKkp6kpFcJfVV8W1ejCrCWQH33mHtgFUn+MpMgw5i1pA@mail.gmail.com/