From: Junio C Hamano Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 02:34:03 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] git-sh-setup: work around Cygwin path handling gotchas Message-ID: <7vehqib4kk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <4FB58678.1050009@ramsay1.demon.co.uk> Ramsay Jones writes: > I guess you won't be shocked to hear that I don't think this patch is > necessary. :-P That is more or less irrelevant, not in the sense that what you say is irrelevant, but in the sense that something can be worked around in a different way alone is not a good reason to reject a patch, if its benefit outweigh its costs. The more important message for you to respond to is this one: Subject: Re: Git commit path vs rebase path To: Ramsay Jones Cc: Johannes Sixt , Steven Penny , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:19:33 -0700 Message-ID: > My concerns about this patch include: > > - the additional fork+exec overhead associated with calling cygpath. > I'm not actually claiming there is any substantial increase; I > haven't tried it, so I don't know how "hot" the pwd() function is. > > - this is a "big hammer" which will affect much more code that is > required to fix this problem. If I speculated in the other message is correct (in short, "In Cygwin world, Git is compiled to use POSIX paths and would not work with Windows paths."), I think this "problem" is fundamentally un"fix"able. And from Cygwin Git, your programs (like $EDITOR and hooks) will get POSIX paths. It is your programs' responsibility to turn them into Windows paths if/as necessary. > Anyway, I applied this patch tonight to give it a go. The very first test > I tried failed. I've attached the log of the failing test below. > Note that it is attempting to use "ssh" to a "host" that ends in ".../C:". Of course. That is one typical symptom that suggests my speculation was correct. So "I don't think this patch is necessary" is irrelevant, but "This patch is harmful; Git on Cygwin is never supposed to use Windows paths" is very relevant ;-)