Re: Topics currently in the Stalled category

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 28, 2012, 03:15 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s3ZtCNsedJtsHDJx5d4Myjbbp+D6yT-rO-CmKOTtt91VQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121128031118.GB27772@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 09:59:28PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> > >  Renaming of remote-testgit feels to be a mistake.  It probably
>> > >  should keep its source in remote-testgit.bash and generate it,
>> >
>> > Why generate it? There's nothing to generate. python's source code
>> > needs regeneration, bash's code doesn't.
>>
>> We fix up the #!-lines on all of the existing shell scripts (as well as
>> python and perl). Wouldn't we want to do the same for people who have
>> bash in an alternate location?
>>
>> As the series is now, people with bash in their PATH, but not in
>> /bin/bash, will fail t5801 (the prereq to skip the test uses "type", but
>> git-remote-testgit hardcodes /bin/bash).
>
> We could improve the test in t5801, but it is nice to let people on such
> systems test it, as well. And the infrastructure might be useful if we
> ever acquire more bash scripts.
>
> There's a fair bit of boilerplate, but I think this squashable patch
> would do it:

Yeah, but I wonder what's the point of installing this script, it's mostly for testing and reference, and to add a whole category for that seems like overkill.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras