On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 03:48:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michał Kiedrowicz <michal.kiedrow...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Jeff King wrote:
> > The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD
> > releases and their derivatives, not to mention antique
> > commercial Unixes.
> > We already purged it in b3431bc (Don't use seq in tests, not
> > everyone has it, 2007-05-02), but a few new instances have crept
> > in. They went unnoticed because they are in scripts that are not
> > run by default.
> > Replace them with test_seq that is implemented with a Perl snippet
> > (proposed by Jeff). This is better than inlining this snippet
> > everywhere it's needed because it's easier to read and it's easier to
> > change the implementation (e.g. to C) if we ever decide to remove Perl
> > from the test suite.
> > Note that test_seq is not a complete replacement for seq(1). It just
> > has what we need now.
> > There are also many places that do `for i in 1 2 3 ...` but I'm not sure
> > if it's worth converting them to test_seq. That would introduce running
> > more processes of Perl.
> > Signed-off-by: Michał Kiedrowicz <michal.kiedrow...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> Thanks; Jeff, ack?
Acked-by: Jeff King <p...@peff.net>
> > + "$PERL_PATH" -le 'print for "$ARGV".."$ARGV"' "$first" "$last"
> I'd prefer not to have dq around $ARGV; is there a reason to have
> one around these?
I don't think they accomplish anything, and it is slightly easier to
read without them. I'm fine either way.
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