Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> Hmph. We ran into this before and fixed all of the sites (e.g., d1c3b10
> and 938791c). This one appears to have been added a few months later
> (by 68d5d03).
>
>> Maybe there are more places where it would be more robust to use
>> printf instead of echo.
>
> FWIW, I just looked through the other uses of "echo" in git-rebase*.sh,
> and I think this is the only problematic case.
>
>> - echo "$sha1 $action $prefix $rest"
>> + printf "%s %s %s %s\n" "$sha1" "$action" "$prefix"
>> "$rest"
>
> Looks obviously correct. The echo just below here does not need the same
> treatment, as "$rest" is the problematic bit ("$prefix" is always
> "fixup" or "squash").
I'd not rationalize this away by deep analysis. Copy&paste is a thing,
so to just use printf whenever _any_ seriously variable strings (source
not immediately the shell script itself, perhaps even _any_ nonconstant
strings) are involved keeps people from introducing bugs by following
apparent practice.
--
David Kastrup
--
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
