From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Parish Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:08:52 -0700 Message-ID: <20071024160852.GA759@srparish.net> References: <20071022063222.GS14735@spearce.org> <7vzly84qwf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 24 18:09:23 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IkinB-0005ed-R5 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:09:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756435AbXJXQI5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:08:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756039AbXJXQI4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:08:56 -0400 Received: from smtp-gw8.mailanyone.net ([208.70.128.73]:53045 "EHLO smtp-gw8.mailanyone.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755908AbXJXQIz (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:08:55 -0400 Received: from mailanyone.net by smtp-gw8.mailanyone.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (MailAnyone extSMTP srp) id 1Ikimr-0004Cw-5e; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:08:53 -0500 Received: by srparish.net (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 502 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) srp@srparish.net; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vzly84qwf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-06) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:51:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > * js/PATH (Sun Oct 21 22:59:01 2007 +0100) 1 commit > - execv_git_cmd(): also try PATH if everything else fails. > > I do not quite get why this is needed; need to go back to the > discussion myself. On the other hand, I found the alternative > approach suggested on the list very interesting (i.e. instead of > "also try", just letting exec*p use PATH, relying on the fact > that we do prepend-to-path anyway). What happened to it? Was > there a downside? The main downside that was raised was MingW compatibility, but Schindelin and Sixt both said that it could wait until further work is done porting to MingW. Should i resend my string of patches? I've seen people numbering their patches, should i do that as well? Thanks sRp -- Scott Parish http://srparish.net/