On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On 04/17/2015 11:06 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, George Dunlap wrote:
> > >> Because we use "set -e", we can't use the "a && b" construct, as it will
> > >> fail and stop the
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/17/2015 11:06 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, George Dunlap wrote:
> >> Because we use "set -e", we can't use the "a && b" construct, as it will
> >> fail and stop the script.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: George Dunlap
> >
> >
On 04/17/2015 11:06 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, George Dunlap wrote:
>> Because we use "set -e", we can't use the "a && b" construct, as it will
>> fail and stop the script.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: George Dunlap
>
> I am wondering whether we should ban both a && b and a ||
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, George Dunlap wrote:
> Because we use "set -e", we can't use the "a && b" construct, as it will fail
> and stop the script.
>
> Signed-off-by: George Dunlap
I am wondering whether we should ban both a && b and a || b from the
code and just go with the more verbose but also
Because we use "set -e", we can't use the "a && b" construct, as it will fail
and stop the script.
Signed-off-by: George Dunlap
---
lib/common-functions.sh | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/common-functions.sh b/lib/common-functions.sh
index 36e1766..06
