Re: [PATCH] t9100: fix breakage when SHELL_PATH is not /bin/sh

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Feb 8, 2016, 19:35 UTC
Message-ID: <20160208193509.GA30554@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602082027550.2964@virtualbox>

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 08:31:54PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, Jeff King wrote:
> 
> > Assuming your patch works on Windows
> 
> If it re-introduces that chmod +x, it won't.
> 
> Please note that my *original* patch actually only guarded the chmod +x,
> but Junio suggested switching to write_script and since it passed the test
> suite here, I though it would be safe.
> 
> I still think write_script is the better alternative.

I'm confused why it matters. write_script() unconditionally calls "chmod +x", doesn't it?

I just double-checked its definition in test-lib-function.sh; am I missing some Windows-specific magic that kicks in?

> So why not just prefix it with `SHELL_PATH=/bin/sh`?

But then what is write_script buying us?

-Peff