Brian Henderson <> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 08:56:35AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > "local" is not a portable construct.  It's common for
> > Debian/Ubuntu systems to use dash as /bin/sh instead of bash;
> > (dash is faster, and mostly sticks to POSIX)
> > 
> > The "devscripts" package in Debian/Ubuntu-based systems has a
> > handy "checkbashisms" tool for checking portability of shell
> > scripts.
> checkbashisms didn't output anything, and I found other instances of
> local in some tests. but I removed anyway.

Ah, I guess "checkbashisms --posix" is required nowadays
since Debian policy deviated from POSIX, here
(we don't blindly follow POSIX, either).

Anyways, some people still care about ksh93 as of a few months
ago; so I think avoiding "local" is preferable:

I think all of our other "local" uses are limited
to bash-specific parts: bash completion, mingw tests


> I've rebased my changes. Unfortunately, having 3 commits made this somewhat
> tedious. I also find it weird that my new patch set makes it difficult to see
> what changes I've made from my first set. What's the standard workflow here?

I check out a new branch with the same base as the previous series
and "git diff previous current"

(without git, I'd be using interdiff from the patchutils Debian package)

Sometimes I will rebase against both old+new against Junio's master
to avoid/reduce conflicts.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to