threads / rfc / 4746

RFC patchconsistently try VISUAL, EDITOR and vi in this order.

Subject: [RFC/PATCH] consistently try VISUAL, EDITOR and vi in this order.

## tl;dr

2 messages between Jul 3, 2006 and Jul 3, 2006. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 1people: 2as markdown or json

Junio C Hamano· Jul 3, 2006, 02:47 UTC · lore

git grep -e VISUAL -e EDITOR revealed this inconsistency. All other commands seem to check VISUAL and then EDITOR as they should.

---

Show changes to git-send-email.perl +1 −2

diff --git a/git-send-email.perl b/git-send-email.perl
index c5d9e73..7b81962 100755
--- a/git-send-email.perl
+++ b/git-send-email.perl
@@ -222,8 +256,7 @@ GIT: for the patch you are writing.
 EOT
 	close(C);
 
-	my $editor = $ENV{EDITOR};
-	$editor = 'vi' unless defined $editor;
+	my $editor = $ENV{VISUAL} || $ENV{EDITOR} || 'vi';
 	system($editor, $compose_filename);
 
 	open(C2,">",$compose_filename . ".final")

Jakub Narebski· Jul 3, 2006, 09:24 UTC · re: Junio C Hamano · lore

Re: [RFC/PATCH] consistently try VISUAL, EDITOR and vi in this order.

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> git grep -e VISUAL -e EDITOR revealed this inconsistency.  All
> other commands seem to check VISUAL and then EDITOR as they should.
>

> +     my $editor = $ENV{VISUAL} || $ENV{EDITOR} || 'vi';
>       system($editor, $compose_filename);

Shouldn't we check if we are in visual (non CLI-only) environment, like X-Window, MS Windows or MacOS X, before trying to use VISUAL? How other parts solve it? </me checks> Ah, we use VISUAL unconditionally, at least in scripts...

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git