From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] t9600: require cvsps 2.1 to perform tests Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:02:02 -0500 Message-ID: <20071205010202.GA4713@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20071202163426.GA29781@coredump.intra.peff.net> <47533D75.1090002@gmail.com> <20071203015954.GB8322@coredump.intra.peff.net> <47548CEC.6010701@gmail.com> <7vir3fe54c.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071204014145.GA20145@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v1wa3aukt.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071204154454.GA2994@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vhciy5pg0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: gitzilla@gmail.com, Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Dec 05 02:02:32 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 1Iziei-0006EF-P1 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:02:29 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751296AbXLEBCG (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:02:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751196AbXLEBCG (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:02:06 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:2627 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751183AbXLEBCF (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:02:05 -0500 Received: (qmail 13119 invoked by uid 111); 5 Dec 2007 01:02:03 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:02:03 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:02:02 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vhciy5pg0.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:39:59AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > You are right about "we may be depending on what 2.1 has other than > -A". Will apply as-is. > > Thanks, both. > > The primary reason I asked about '\[-A\]' was what will happen if > somebody uses 2.2. Yes, it would be nice to be able to easily check >2.1. GNU expr seems to handle this ok: $ expr 2.2 '>' 2.1 1 $ expr 2.0 '>' 2.1 0 but POSIX seems to mention only integers and string comparison (though if all are of the form "x.y", string comparison works). I have no idea how portable this is. -Peff