Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Improve transport helper exec failure reporting
- From
- Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
- Date
- Dec 25, 2009, 09:32 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20091225093220.GA8319@Knoppix>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vljgrebv2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 11:44:49PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> writes: > > Looks pretty straightforward, except that I have this nagging feeling that > we should *not* be married to the idea of "'proc->git_cmd = 1' is merely a > way to save you from typing 'git-' prefix in start_command(proc)".
That is already broken. If nothing previous broke it, then 1/2 of this series did.
The immediate executable to run for 'git-foo' && git_cmd = 0: 'git-foo'. The immediate executable to run for 'foo' && git_cmd = 1: 'git'(!).
And one wants exec status for 'git-remote-foo', NOT for 'git'. Thus, git_cmd must be 0 (at least without additional flags or flag values).
> For example, we might later want to use different $PATH only when running > a git subcommand, and telling run_command() explicitly that we are running > a git thing would help if you don't add "git-" to the command line and > drop "proc->git_cmd = 1" in the caller like your patch does.
Well, that would require new flag (or git_cmd field value) to mean do direct exec with gitexecdir in $PATH. Otherwise, you would either break this piece of code, or it would be already broken (depending on value of git_cmd).
-Ilari