Re: [PATCH] t0060: loosen overly strict expectations

From: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com>
Date: Jan 14, 2016, 18:13 UTC
Message-ID: <5697E550.9020102@ramsayjones.plus.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqziw8jcbr.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On 14/01/16 17:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 26 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> Also...
> 
>> -#if defined(__MINGW32__)
>> -	/* the following is clearly wrong ... */
>> -	{ "C:",              "."      },
>> -#endif
>> -
>> -#if defined(_MSC_VER)
>> -	{ "C:",              "C:."    },
>> -#endif
>> -
>> -#endif
>> +	{ "C:",              "C:.", "." },
>>  #endif
> 
> "C:" is still allowed to go to "."; is it still "clearly wrong",
> or do we have a reason why we think it is not wrong at all?
> 
> I think the comment was written by Ramsay and also suspect that you
> did not specifically agree or disagree with that particular
> decision, so I'd understand if you do not have a strong opinion
> either way, but I'd like to hear from Ramsay.  Perhaps earlier we
> thought it was clearly wrong but we no longer do?
>

Yes, that comment was mine. The result is "clearly wrong" if you follow the POSIX rules [1], but that may not translate exactly to a dos like path. ;-)

I think the question is: does it make a difference if you call chdir() on the result? Which brings up something which I have been ignoring. Correct me if I'm wrong (quite possible), but _each_ drive has a current working directory associated with it in win32, so it's a bit difficult to use drive designators with a relative path (eg. C:usr/lib).

Note: The test data in the test-libgen.c file was using Linux
as the 'benchmark' for the POSIX paths and IIRC MinGW-32 for
the dos paths. (Note that I said 'benchmark' _not_ 'correct'). :-P

ATB, Ramsay Jones

[1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/dirname.html