Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2010, #01; Mon, 04)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:35:07PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> > 1. My patch "t0021:..." contains an unrelated change to t4030 (it
>> > changes a /bin/sh to $SHELL_PATH) that is not necessary. I included it
>> > in my first version of the patch, but later noticed that we already
>> > have many similar uses of /bin/sh instead of $SHELL_PATH in test
>> > scriptlets and decided to remove the change, but I only changed the
>> > commit message and forgot to unstage t4030.
>> 
>> While you are technically correct that the change you made in t4030 is not
>> justified by the commit log message in the sense that the "hexdump" script
>> will go through run_command() interface and is not subject to the special
>> rules filter writers need to keep in mind, the patch text itself is a good
>> change, isn't it?  Do you want me to split the commit into two (one with
>> the current message with a patch only to t0021, and another to t4030 with
>> a justification like "SHELL_PATH is what the user told us to use")?
>
> If we are going to do the t4030 change, there are a ton of other spots
> that use /bin/sh directly (I counted 38 with
>
>   grep -n /bin/sh * | grep -v :1:
>
> ). Should we be changing all of them?
>
> It is slightly just code churn, because the scripts are so simple that
> even broken shells like Solaris /bin/sh run them just fine. The only
> real advantage is that it slightly future-proofs them against somebody
> making them more complex.

Ok, it is a single liner that invokes Perl, so hardcoded /bin/sh is a much
lessor offence.