Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] transport-helper: do not run git-remote-ext etc. in dashed form

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 26, 2020, 16:27 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqpn7dwews.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cTvLaOD1idfB2M0-QSfXXKBe5-FnWSU9E0PaUMHAoGj1w@mail.gmail.com>

Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:17 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Runing them as "git remote-ext" and letting "git" dispatch to
>
> s/Runing/Running/
> s/them/it/

I wrote 'them' because it is not only 'ext' but other helpers are also run with the same mechanism, but the sentence uses remote-ext as a single concrete example, so 'it' would be more appropriate. Thanks.

Show 13 quoted lines

>> "remote-ext" would just be fine and is more idiomatic.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/transport-helper.c b/transport-helper.c
>> @@ -128,7 +128,8 @@ static struct child_process *get_helper(struct transport *transport)
>> -       strvec_pushf(&helper->args, "git-remote-%s", data->name);
>> +       strvec_push(&helper->args, "git");
>> +       strvec_pushf(&helper->args, "remote-%s", data->name);
>
> Rather than pushing "git" as the first argument, would it instead be
> more idiomatic to set `helper->git_cmd = 1` (or would that not work
> correctly for some reason)?

I was aiming for minimum change and did not think too deeply.

If .git_cmd=1 works here (and offhand I do not see a reason why not), then that would be simpler. Thanks.