Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2026, #03)

>>
>> Note that on cygwin I don't get the warning and the number of build targets
>> is 693, rather than 694 (I don't know if that's relevant). Also the version
>> of meson on linux is 1.3.2, but on cygwin is 1.5.2 (so, I would have thought
>> that the deprecation warning would also appear on cygwin! ;) ).
> 
> If I remember correctly this particular deprecation was rolled back
> eventually. *goes double checking* Yup, it's been deprecated in Meson
> 0.64.0, but that deprecation has been rolled back in 0c802d260 (remove
> deprecation warning for `configure_file` kwarg 'copy', 2024-05-24),
> released as part of Meson 1.5.0.

>> The make and meson builds appear very similar, although some paths and version
>> numbers differ:
>>
>>   $ diff build/subprojects/git-gui/git-gui git-gui/git-gui
>>   1c1
>>   < #!/usr/bin/sh
>>   ---
>>   > #!/bin/sh
>>   6c6
>>   < 	echo 'git-gui version 0.21.GITGUI'; \
>>   ---
>>   > 	echo 'git-gui version 0.21.0.257.g1a729'; \
>>   10c10
>>   <  exec '/usr/bin/wish' "$argv0" -- "$@"
>>   ---
>>   >  exec 'wish' "$argv0" -- "$@"
>>   12c12
>>   < set appvers {0.21.GITGUI}
>>   ---
>>   > set appvers {0.21.0.257.g1a729}
>>   378c378
>>   < set _shellpath {/usr/bin/sh}
>>   ---
>>   > set _shellpath {/bin/sh}
>>   $ 
> 
> I guess the /bin/sh thing is something I'll want to address so that we
> prefer "/bin/sh" over "/usr/bin/sh". We did the same fix in Git itself
> eventually. The wish shell feels sensible though, I don't think we need
> to fix that part.
> 
> The version thing is actually a bug. The problem is that we have started
> to set GIT_CEILING_DIRECTORIES, but we set it to the directory of
> git-gui itself. That of course works as long as git-gui is compiled
> standalone, but doesn't work anymore in case git-gui is embedded as a
> subproject.
> 
> So why does it work for our Makefile? That's because we define the
> SOURCE_DIR as ".", and as a result we define the ceiling directory as
> "./..". And that seems to not restrict our discovery process. I don't
> really know why that is, to be honest.
> 
> I have created [1] to address these issues. Thanks for testing!