From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 16:16:20 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] connect: improve check for plink to reduce false positives
Message-ID: <xmqq381ewiln.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150626131524.GA2626@peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 08:30:12PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
>
>> Improve the check by looking for "plink" or "tortoiseplink" (or those
>> names suffixed with ".exe") only in the final component of the path.
>> This has the downside that a program such as "plink-0.63" would no
>> longer be recognized, but the increased robustness is likely worth it.
>> Add tests to cover these cases to avoid regressions.
>
> FYI, this ended up biting me today. We have some integration tests that
> make sure we can clone over putty, and we wrap plink in a
> "plink-wrapper.sh" script that tweaks a few extra options. That used to
> match under the old scheme, but not the new. It would also match if we
> looked for "plink" anywhere in the basename (but not in leading
> directories).

So this was a minor regression? ;-)

> I was able to work around it pretty easily by changing our test setup,
> but I thought I would include it here as a data point. It's probably not
> that representative of real-world users.

I'd imagine that "/usr/local/github/wrapped/bin/plink" may be a more
appropriate name to install that wrapper as than "plink-wrapper.sh",
but then people would need to think how to help that wrapper find
the real plink, so...