From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx•de>
Cc: git@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mingw: work around t2300's assuming non-Windows paths
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:27:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqk2hiqwpb.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqr3bqqxhc.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:10:23 -0700")
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> writes:
> I think you would need something similar to "pwd -W", that is, leave
> "git --exec-path" as a way to give shell scripts people have written
> over the years that allows them to say "git-cmd" as long as they do
> PATH="$(git --exec-path):$PATH" upfront. And for Windows scripts,
> introduce a new option "git --exec-path-windows" that can give
> C:/git-sdk-64/usr/src/git (or even using backslash).
Of course we could go the other way. We can declare that the output
of "git --exec-path" is the format that is platform-native pathname
to the directory [*1*], introduce a new option that is better
named than "--exec-path-to-include-in-PATH-in-shell-scripts" that
does the "convert C:/ to /c/ on Windows before showing" thing, and
rewrite all the references that does PATH=$(git --exec-path):$PATH
in scripts to use that new option.
The fact remains that on some platforms two variants are needed. We
can update our test scripts with "convert C:/ to /c/ on Windows" to
work around a test failure like the patch under discussion did, but
that approach would not scale to fix real world scripts that people
already have, which is what I am trying to see if we can address in
these two messages.
[Footnote]
*1* ...instead of "it is suitable for PATH=$(git --exec-path):$PATH
in your shell scripts", which was the definition I used in the
message I am responding to. "The name '--exec-path' implies it is a
path to the directory, and it is more natural for that to be platform
native" is a valid argument (and that is why I am saying "we could
go the other way" here), but I am not convinced that the conclusion
that the argument leads to is a better one in the practical sense.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-21 17:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-18 10:49 [PATCH 0/1] Fix testing of `master` on Windows Johannes Schindelin
2016-06-18 10:49 ` [PATCH 1/1] mingw: work around t2300's assuming non-Windows paths Johannes Schindelin
2016-06-20 19:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-06-21 12:01 ` Johannes Schindelin
2016-06-21 17:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-06-21 17:27 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2016-06-22 8:25 ` Johannes Schindelin
2016-06-22 16:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-06-22 20:06 ` Johannes Schindelin
2016-06-22 20:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-06-22 21:26 ` Johannes Schindelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqk2hiqwpb.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com \
--to=gitster@pobox$(echo .)com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx$(echo .)de \
--cc=git@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox