Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2010, #01; Mon, 04)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 5, 2010, 04:20 UTC
Message-ID: <20100105042046.GC12574@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vhbr1bagk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:35:07PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

> > 1. My patch "t0021:..." contains an unrelated change to t4030 (it
> > changes a /bin/sh to $SHELL_PATH) that is not necessary. I included it
> > in my first version of the patch, but later noticed that we already
> > have many similar uses of /bin/sh instead of $SHELL_PATH in test
> > scriptlets and decided to remove the change, but I only changed the
> > commit message and forgot to unstage t4030.
> 
> While you are technically correct that the change you made in t4030 is not
> justified by the commit log message in the sense that the "hexdump" script
> will go through run_command() interface and is not subject to the special
> rules filter writers need to keep in mind, the patch text itself is a good
> change, isn't it?  Do you want me to split the commit into two (one with
> the current message with a patch only to t0021, and another to t4030 with
> a justification like "SHELL_PATH is what the user told us to use")?

If we are going to do the t4030 change, there are a ton of other spots that use /bin/sh directly (I counted 38 with

  grep -n /bin/sh * | grep -v :1:

). Should we be changing all of them?

It is slightly just code churn, because the scripts are so simple that even broken shells like Solaris /bin/sh run them just fine. The only real advantage is that it slightly future-proofs them against somebody making them more complex.

-Peff