From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2010, #01; Mon, 04) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:18:34 -0800 Message-ID: <7v4on186z9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vljgei7rs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4B421766.4040506@kdbg.org> <7vhbr1bagk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20100105042046.GC12574@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Johannes Sixt , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jan 05 06:18:57 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NS1om-0002CB-U4 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jan 2010 06:18:57 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752361Ab0AEFSs (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2010 00:18:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751255Ab0AEFSs (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2010 00:18:48 -0500 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:56008 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751963Ab0AEFSr (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jan 2010 00:18:47 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680458EF68; Tue, 5 Jan 2010 00:18:44 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=bold830KIF0waSspRIt19bTPwtw=; b=iRxzVi qTprq4RYkCbbZ4ElKsk5Mb71Zi9A9CJd1zedeDiV8YT2GBBbZeHCbCWAF07p91eM C9rqhvAcQgSgupzBiO5f2GS1GKW2JcjRkvcNUyRmZTsK7ycQ0fMcxSNktmSp4lac BoTJM3gtDKjCFgedBDsz+QjnsmG+l+RNJG8x8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=EmHmxWmVvCZVVmvgIHIY05HiQjMNaRdQ NLV0RfW65qF7GClMg5xi4oN5KUIH+mmnUK+FcX6YRvgDdH7Mlocx7Aw2BU+v+1mf YBA7sCSqEOR2l4iRTF068W2yp+Rn7wKEBsi/+bT4fkPSrQBilRhY09wbB4XkpCcr 0crA7pMrrAM= Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 370278EF66; Tue, 5 Jan 2010 00:18:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 516648EF65; Tue, 5 Jan 2010 00:18:36 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20100105042046.GC12574@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Mon\, 4 Jan 2010 23\:20\:47 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C976D0A6-F9B9-11DE-AF1A-9D59EE7EF46B-77302942!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King 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.