Brian Henderson <henderson...@gmail.com> 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: https://public-inbox.org/git/?q=ksh93&d:..20160801 I think all of our other "local" uses are limited to bash-specific parts: bash completion, mingw tests <snip> > 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
