On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 09:00:47PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: > We might wonder why our && chain check does not catch this case: > The && chain check uses a strange exit code with the expectation that > the second or later part of a broken && chain would not exit with this > particular code. > > This expectation does not work in this case because __git_ps1, being > the first command in the second part of the broken && chain, records > the current exit code, does its work, and finally returns to the caller > with the recorded exit code. This fools our && chain check.
Wow. Good find. Patch itself is obviously correct. -Peff
