Re: [PATCH] Move test-* to t/helper/ subdirectory

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 9, 2016, 16:03 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqposvxlpb.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8DtFLkfqSHRjFU4N9H9C3MfVOn-XEy4yOwneQaatvvDkQ@mail.gmail.com>

Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:

> So among the options we have so far, which way should we go, or leave it as is?

Thanks for reminding me.

I like that version you sent with "I may have rushed to judgment" comment the most. Perhaps I can just queue it with s/PATH/PROG/ fixup?

Show 31 quoted lines

>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I may have rushed to judgement. wrap-for-bin.sh has always been the
>>>> dependency for bin-wrappers/*. If we force that file to change, then
>>>> bin-wrappers/* will be recreated when switching branches. So how about
>>>> this?
>>>
>>> I do not think you are "force updating wrap-for-bin" in any way in
>>> the patch, though.  You are building it in such a way that it does
>>> not have to get updated within the revision that contains e6e7530
>>> (assuming that this will be queued directly on top it and merged to
>>> everywhere e6e7530 is contained).
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> The new case/esac looks somewhat bad (its knowing that where test-*
>>> lives, test-* is the only thing that is special, etc. troubles me at
>>> the same time that case/esac is funnily formated).
>>
>> We could just make some random changes in this file. That would have
>> the same effect.
>>
>>> Where does "@@PATH@@" come from and who rewrites it?  Is that a
>>> misspelt "@@PROG@@"?
>>
>> Yep. Should have run make distclean before testing :(
>> --
>> Duy