Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] connect: improve check for plink to reduce false positives

From: Jeff King <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:27:01 -0400

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 09:16:20AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > FYI, this ended up biting me today. We have some integration tests that
> > make sure we can clone over putty, and we wrap plink in a
> > "plink-wrapper.sh" script that tweaks a few extra options. That used to
> > match under the old scheme, but not the new. It would also match if we
> > looked for "plink" anywhere in the basename (but not in leading
> > directories).
> 
> So this was a minor regression? ;-)

Yes. :)

> > I was able to work around it pretty easily by changing our test setup,
> > but I thought I would include it here as a data point. It's probably not
> > that representative of real-world users.
> 
> I'd imagine that "/usr/local/github/wrapped/bin/plink" may be a more
> appropriate name to install that wrapper as than "plink-wrapper.sh",
> but then people would need to think how to help that wrapper find
> the real plink, so...

It's the test suite for the server side of our git infrastructure, so
nothing gets installed. It's more like:

  export GIT_SSH=$PROJECT_ROOT/test/plink-wrapper.sh
  export REAL_PLINK=$PROJECT_ROOT/vendor/putty/plink
  git clone localhost:foo.git

and the wrapper knows to chain to $REAL_PLINK. So it was actually pretty
easy to swap, without any hacks to avoid recursing to ourselves in the
$PATH.

I doubt it is a problem for most people, because I don't imagine they
are writing test suites for git-related software.

-Peff