From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:07:40 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] t9100: fix breakage when SHELL_PATH is not /bin/sh
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602091101250.2964@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd1s77yhg.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Hi Junio,

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > write_script is a semantically unambiguous way to specify what we *want*.
> > And it would allow us to handle chmod specifically for Windows *in one
> > place only*.
> 
> Correct.  write_script, for the intended target of the helper, is a
> way to write a script that can later be invoked by the test with the
> name "$1".

And whose executable bit is set, contingent on the POSIXPERM prereq.

> It is conceivable for write_script on UNIX to be writing
> into "$1" while Windows version to be writing into "$1.bat"

Oy vey. Good thing you did not see my first reaction.

Shell scripts and batch scripts have *very* different semantics. Therefore
it would be a major nightmare (for me, not for you) to support writing
them *using the same write_script invocation*.

Let's just not go there.

> But the way the test uses this exec.sh script is not consistent with
> that.  exec.sh for this test is merely a data, whose content must
> exactly match what later tests expect, i.e. it wants it to begin with
> "#!/bin/sh" and its execute bit on, even though the test does not have
> no intention to run it as a script.

The important part, of course, is "and its execute bit on" which makes it
a moot point to ask whether we intend to execute the script or not. A
script is what we want, and a script is what we write. Therefore,
write_script is what we call. With the $2 fix-up to keep DrMicha happy.

Ciao,
Dscho