On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:49:15AM -0700, David Aguilar wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 07:55:58AM -0700, Elia Pinto wrote:
> > The construct is error-prone; "test" being built-in in most modern
> > shells, the reason to avoid "test <cond> && test <cond>" spawning
> > one extra process by using a single "test <cond> -a <cond>" no
> > longer exists.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Elia Pinto <gitter.spi...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  t/t5000-tar-tree.sh |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh b/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh
> > index 74fc5a8..ad6fa0d 100755
> > --- a/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh
> > +++ b/t/t5000-tar-tree.sh
> > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ check_tar() {
> >                     for header in *.paxheader
> >                     do
> >                             data=${header%.paxheader}.data &&
> > -                           if test -h $data -o -e $data
> > +                           if test -h $data || test -e $data
> >                             then
> 
> This looks okay, but it raises a question for the original author
> (René, I think that's you so I've added you to the To: line).

Just following up -- I got a bounce from René's email address.

> 
> Should that be "test -f" instead of "test -e"?

It does seem like this should be "test -f" nonetheless.
Sorry for the noise.

> This is a very minor note and should not block this patch.
-- 
David
--
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

Reply via email to