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

> 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.