[PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Jeff King]

Without this, test-lib checks that the git_remote_helpers
directory has been built. However, if we are building
without python, we will not have done anything at all in
that directory, and test-lib's sanity check will fail.

Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
---
On top of sr/vcs-helper.

This feels a little funny for NO_PYTHON to mean "no remote helpers at
all". But that is the way the Makefile is set up, since we seem to have
only python helpers.

 Makefile      |    1 +
 t/test-lib.sh |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 42744a4..443565e 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1743,6 +1743,7 @@ GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS: .FORCE-GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS
 	@echo TAR=\''$(subst ','\'',$(subst ','\'',$(TAR)))'\' >>$@
 	@echo NO_CURL=\''$(subst ','\'',$(subst ','\'',$(NO_CURL)))'\' >>$@
 	@echo NO_PERL=\''$(subst ','\'',$(subst ','\'',$(NO_PERL)))'\' >>$@
+	@echo NO_PYTHON=\''$(subst ','\'',$(subst ','\'',$(NO_PYTHON)))'\' >>$@
 
 ### Detect Tck/Tk interpreter path changes
 ifndef NO_TCLTK
diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
index 4a40520..ca0839c 100644
--- a/t/test-lib.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib.sh
@@ -638,7 +638,7 @@ test -d ../templates/blt || {
 	error "You haven't built things yet, have you?"
 }
 
-if test -z "$GIT_TEST_INSTALLED"
+if test -z "$GIT_TEST_INSTALLED" && test -z "$NO_PYTHON"
 then
 	GITPYTHONLIB="$(pwd)/../git_remote_helpers/build/lib"
 	export GITPYTHONLIB
-- 
1.6.6.rc0.327.gd49b

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Sverre Rabbelier]

Heya,

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:52, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> This feels a little funny for NO_PYTHON to mean "no remote helpers at
> all". But that is the way the Makefile is set up, since we seem to have
> only python helpers.

I don't understand what you mean? Do you mean NO_PYTHON implies "no
remote helpers at all", or "not having any remote helpers" implies
NO_PYTHON? Either way, I'm not sure how to set it up differently, not
having that much Makefile foo myself, so maybe Johan and Daniel could
comment?

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Jeff King]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:55:51AM +0100, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:

> > This feels a little funny for NO_PYTHON to mean "no remote helpers at
> > all". But that is the way the Makefile is set up, since we seem to have
> > only python helpers.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean? Do you mean NO_PYTHON implies "no
> remote helpers at all", or "not having any remote helpers" implies
> NO_PYTHON? Either way, I'm not sure how to set it up differently, not
> having that much Makefile foo myself, so maybe Johan and Daniel could
> comment?

I mean, I would think that the "git_remote_helpers" directory contained
remote helpers of all sorts, not just the python ones. Right now we
_only_ have python ones. So checking for NO_PYTHON in test-lib.sh before
looking at git_remote_helpers makes sense.  But I am concerned that
assumption will be broken silently in the future if non-python helpers
are added to git_remote_helpers.

It is probably not worth caring about too much, though.

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Sverre Rabbelier]

Heya,

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:59, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> I mean, I would think that the "git_remote_helpers" directory contained
> remote helpers of all sorts, not just the python ones.

I don't think that's true, git.git currently does not have such a
structure (everything is just dumped in the root directory). The only
reason git_remote_helpers exists is to make it easier to create a
python egg out of it and install that. At least, that's what I think
is going on, Johan and Daniel might have comments to the contrary.

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Jeff King]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 09:04:25AM +0100, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:59, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> > I mean, I would think that the "git_remote_helpers" directory contained
> > remote helpers of all sorts, not just the python ones.
> 
> I don't think that's true, git.git currently does not have such a
> structure (everything is just dumped in the root directory). The only
> reason git_remote_helpers exists is to make it easier to create a
> python egg out of it and install that. At least, that's what I think
> is going on, Johan and Daniel might have comments to the contrary.

OK. It is just my confusion, then. Don't worry about it.

-Peff

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Junio C Hamano]

Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 08:59, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>> I mean, I would think that the "git_remote_helpers" directory contained
>> remote helpers of all sorts, not just the python ones.
>
> I don't think that's true, git.git currently does not have such a
> structure (everything is just dumped in the root directory). The only
> reason git_remote_helpers exists is to make it easier to create a
> python egg out of it and install that.

If that is the case, shouldn't each of the helper written in Python need
to have a separate directory, not just a single git_remote_helpers
directory shared among them?

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Sverre Rabbelier]

Heya,

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 09:28, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> writes:
>> I don't think that's true, git.git currently does not have such a
>> structure (everything is just dumped in the root directory). The only
>> reason git_remote_helpers exists is to make it easier to create a
>> python egg out of it and install that.
>
> If that is the case, shouldn't each of the helper written in Python need
> to have a separate directory, not just a single git_remote_helpers
> directory shared among them?

I don't understand why that would be needed? The reason we added a
single git_remote_helpers directory is because we wanted to share
common code, having a single python package makes that easy.

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Junio C Hamano]

Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 09:28, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I don't think that's true, git.git currently does not have such a
>>> structure (everything is just dumped in the root directory). The only
>>> reason git_remote_helpers exists is to make it easier to create a
>>> python egg out of it and install that.
>>
>> If that is the case, shouldn't each of the helper written in Python need
>> to have a separate directory, not just a single git_remote_helpers
>> directory shared among them?
>
> I don't understand why that would be needed? The reason we added a
> single git_remote_helpers directory is because we wanted to share
> common code, having a single python package makes that easy.

Sorry, I don't understand that.  With that reasoning, isn't having a
single git package, be it python or not, even easier?  Why would anybody
want a separate egg that includes everything that _happen_ to be written
in Python in the first place?  It doesn't make sense at all from packaging
point of view to me.

A separate egg per remote-helper that you can pick and choose which ones
to install and which ones to leave out would make perfect sense, exactly
the same way that distros already split git into "git-core", "git-svn",
etc., though.  Your "git-hg" may consist of a single egg and perhaps some
other supporting code, and people who want to convert away from legacy Hg
repository may want to install it, but it is entirely up to them if they
also want to install "git-cvs" that is implemented as a remote-helper that
happens to be written in Python, no?

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Sverre Rabbelier]

Heya,

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 09:49, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I don't understand that.  With that reasoning, isn't having a
> single git package, be it python or not, even easier?  Why would anybody
> want a separate egg that includes everything that _happen_ to be written
> in Python in the first place?  It doesn't make sense at all from packaging
> point of view to me.

Because that's the recommended way to create a python package, create
a new directory, put the files in it, and distribute it.

> A separate egg per remote-helper that you can pick and choose which ones
> to install and which ones to leave out would make perfect sense, exactly
> the same way that distros already split git into "git-core", "git-svn",
> etc., though.  Your "git-hg" may consist of a single egg and perhaps some
> other supporting code, and people who want to convert away from legacy Hg
> repository may want to install it, but it is entirely up to them if they
> also want to install "git-cvs" that is implemented as a remote-helper that
> happens to be written in Python, no?

Yes, fair enough, but we don't do that for any other files in git.git.
The packagers do so, sure, but a different concern. The reason we want
to distribute the git_remote_helpers package is so that
git-remote-hg.py, which lives in git.git/ and is installed as
git-remote-hg can say "from git_remote_helpers.hg import export".

The only reason this is needed in the first place is because we can't
just add the python files to libgit.a or embed it in git-remote-hg
statically, python does not support that. That is the only reason we
need to distribute the package, which is why we need a separate
directory.

That is, if I've understood Johan's reasoning and intention correctly.

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Johan Herland]

On Monday 30 November 2009, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
> Heya,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 09:49, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't understand that.  With that reasoning, isn't having a
> > single git package, be it python or not, even easier?  Why would
> > anybody want a separate egg that includes everything that _happen_ to
> > be written in Python in the first place?  It doesn't make sense at all
> > from packaging point of view to me.
> 
> Because that's the recommended way to create a python package, create
> a new directory, put the files in it, and distribute it.
> 
> > A separate egg per remote-helper that you can pick and choose which
> > ones to install and which ones to leave out would make perfect sense,
> > exactly the same way that distros already split git into "git-core",
> > "git-svn", etc., though.  Your "git-hg" may consist of a single egg and
> > perhaps some other supporting code, and people who want to convert away
> > from legacy Hg repository may want to install it, but it is entirely up
> > to them if they also want to install "git-cvs" that is implemented as a
> > remote-helper that happens to be written in Python, no?
> 
> Yes, fair enough, but we don't do that for any other files in git.git.
> The packagers do so, sure, but a different concern. The reason we want
> to distribute the git_remote_helpers package is so that
> git-remote-hg.py, which lives in git.git/ and is installed as
> git-remote-hg can say "from git_remote_helpers.hg import export".
> 
> The only reason this is needed in the first place is because we can't
> just add the python files to libgit.a or embed it in git-remote-hg
> statically, python does not support that. That is the only reason we
> need to distribute the package, which is why we need a separate
> directory.
> 
> That is, if I've understood Johan's reasoning and intention correctly.

Yes, you have. I'll repeat the history of this to hopefully clarify:

I first created a "git-remote-cvs.py" script (originally under a different 
name, but that is not important), that was transformed (essentially copied) 
to "git-remote-cvs" by the build process. This script was large and 
unwieldy, however, and I found it more maintainable to split it into several 
python scripts. So I created a "git_remote_cvs", and put the supporting 
scripts in there.

Now, in order for the smaller "git-remote-cvs" executable to do its job, it 
needed to import the supporting scripts at runtime, so I decided to make a 
python egg from the "git_remote_cvs" subdir, that would be installed using 
Python's infrastructure. This, I deemed, was the safest way to ensure that 
the "git_remote_cvs" scripts were always available at runtime.

Next, Sverre started his "git-remote-hg.py" script, and found that he could 
re-use some of the scripts in the "git_remote_cvs" package. He therefore 
(with my blessing) refactored this subdir into the "git_remote_helpers" 
subdir/package that is currently under discussion. Hence, this subdir is 
meant to contain the support scripts for remote helper written in Python, 
both common support scripts, and support scripts specific to each remote 
helper. So far, only the common code is there, but we expect the Hg and CVS 
helpers to add scripts to the "hg" and "cvs" subsubdirs, respectively.

END_OF_HISTORY

Just to clarify, Git remote helpers does not live in the 
"git_remote_helpers" subdir. The subdir (which is installed as a Python 
library package) does not contain anything resembling a complete remote 
helper. Instead, the remote helper scripts live as regular scripts in the 
git.git root dir, and (like any other git program) are turned into 
executables by the build process. The difference is that two of the remote 
helpers currently being developed (Sverre's "git-remote-hg", and my "git-
remote-cvs") are written in Python, and (want to) share some common 
supporting code currently located in the "git_remote_helpers" subdir.

We _could_ split up the "git_remote_helpers" package into a "git-remote-hg"-
specific package, and a "git-remote-cvs"-specific package, but that would 
mean either having two copies of the current support code. Alternately, we 
could create a _third_ package containing the common support code, that each 
of our hg/cvs support packages would in turn depend on. I don't think we 
want to go there, at least not yet.

Also, to prevent this misunderstanding, we could create a "python" subdir in 
git.git, and move the "git_remote_helpers" into there. However, it would 
slightly complicate (at least) the git-remote-cvs.py script which currently 
exploits the "coincidence" that the subdir has the same name as the 
corresponding python package, and is therefore testable in both its unbuilt 
and built state.


Hope this helps,

...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Junio C Hamano]

Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> writes:

> ... Hence, this subdir is 
> meant to contain the support scripts for remote helper written in Python, 
> both common support scripts, and support scripts specific to each remote 
> helper. So far, only the common code is there, but we expect the Hg and CVS 
> helpers to add scripts to the "hg" and "cvs" subsubdirs, respectively.

Ahh, Ok, that clarifies it.  The packager (not me) can package what is
(in|built from) remote_helpers directory into one package, and declare
that as a dependency to each of the individual remote helper packages that
uses the common stuff found in there, if the distro wants to have "one
end-user feature per package" granularity.

Just to make sure you didn't misunderstand me, I wasn't complaining that
the directory was not further split for each helper.  I wanted to know the
reason behind wanting to have _one_ directory that is common across
multiple helpers that are supposed to be independent.  "A common library"
is a good reason to have that organization.

> We _could_ split up the "git_remote_helpers" package into a "git-remote-hg"-
> specific package, and a "git-remote-cvs"-specific package, but that would 
> mean either having two copies of the current support code. Alternately, we 
> could create a _third_ package containing the common support code, that each 
> of our hg/cvs support packages would in turn depend on. I don't think we 
> want to go there, at least not yet.

I think that is typically done by the distros; in the longer term it would
be nicer to them if we did so in our build structure, but I do not think
we are there yet.

> Also, to prevent this misunderstanding, we could create a "python" subdir in 
> git.git, and move the "git_remote_helpers" into there.

If (and this is a big if, as we are not migrating to Python) the use of
Python proliferates over time, a single "python" subdir to hold "a common
library" to create the third package will not make sense in the longer
term, as different services written in Python will have different set of
common supporting code, so there will be multiple common libraries and you
would need multiple third packages.  You would probably need multiple
directories there, perhaps as subdirectories of that single toplevel
directory you called "python", so that scripts written in Python would say
"import pythonGit.remoteHelper" or something like that.

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Johan Herland]

On Monday 30 November 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> writes:
> > We _could_ split up the "git_remote_helpers" package into a
> > "git-remote-hg"- specific package, and a "git-remote-cvs"-specific
> > package, but that would mean either having two copies of the
> > current support code. Alternately, we could create a _third_
> > package containing the common support code, that each of our hg/cvs
> > support packages would in turn depend on. I don't think we want to
> > go there, at least not yet.
>
> I think that is typically done by the distros; in the longer term it
> would be nicer to them if we did so in our build structure, but I do
> not think we are there yet.

Agreed.

> > Also, to prevent this misunderstanding, we could create a "python"
> > subdir in git.git, and move the "git_remote_helpers" into there.
>
> If (and this is a big if, as we are not migrating to Python) the use
> of Python proliferates over time, a single "python" subdir to hold "a
> common library" to create the third package will not make sense in
> the longer term, as different services written in Python will have
> different set of common supporting code, so there will be multiple
> common libraries and you would need multiple third packages.  You
> would probably need multiple directories there, perhaps as
> subdirectories of that single toplevel directory you called "python",
> so that scripts written in Python would say "import
> pythonGit.remoteHelper" or something like that.

Yes, I agree that if we get multiple Python support packages, it makes 
sense to create a "python" subdir, and store each package as a 
subsubdir of "python". Still, I don't think we need to plan that far 
ahead now. We can do that restructuring when it becomes necessary. If 
there are no more objections, I vote for keeping the current structure 
for now.


Have fun! :)

...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Brandon Casey]

Jeff King wrote:
> Without this, test-lib checks that the git_remote_helpers
> directory has been built. However, if we are building
> without python, we will not have done anything at all in
> that directory, and test-lib's sanity check will fail.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> ---
> On top of sr/vcs-helper.
> 
> This feels a little funny for NO_PYTHON to mean "no remote helpers at
> all". But that is the way the Makefile is set up, since we seem to have
> only python helpers.
> 
>  Makefile      |    1 +
>  t/test-lib.sh |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 42744a4..443565e 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -1743,6 +1743,7 @@ GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS: .FORCE-GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS
>  	@echo TAR=\''$(subst ','\'',$(subst ','\'',$(TAR)))'\' >>$@
>  	@echo NO_CURL=\''$(subst ','\'',$(subst ','\'',$(NO_CURL)))'\' >>$@
>  	@echo NO_PERL=\''$(subst ','\'',$(subst ','\'',$(NO_PERL)))'\' >>$@
> +	@echo NO_PYTHON=\''$(subst ','\'',$(subst ','\'',$(NO_PYTHON)))'\' >>$@
>  
>  ### Detect Tck/Tk interpreter path changes
>  ifndef NO_TCLTK
> diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
> index 4a40520..ca0839c 100644
> --- a/t/test-lib.sh
> +++ b/t/test-lib.sh
> @@ -638,7 +638,7 @@ test -d ../templates/blt || {
>  	error "You haven't built things yet, have you?"
>  }
>  
> -if test -z "$GIT_TEST_INSTALLED"
> +if test -z "$GIT_TEST_INSTALLED" && test -z "$NO_PYTHON"
>  then
>  	GITPYTHONLIB="$(pwd)/../git_remote_helpers/build/lib"
>  	export GITPYTHONLIB

Shouldn't this section be moved down below the sourcing of ../GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS
on line 656 so that the value of NO_PYTHON will be available when running the
test scripts directly?

-brandon

ps. There's something eerily familiar about this patch.

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Jeff King]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:07:40PM -0600, Brandon Casey wrote:

> Shouldn't this section be moved down below the sourcing of ../GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS
> on line 656 so that the value of NO_PYTHON will be available when running the
> test scripts directly?

Oops, good catch. I stupidly tested with "make NO_PYTHON=1 test" instead
of actually checking that GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS was propagating it
correctly.

> ps. There's something eerily familiar about this patch.

Hmmm. Yes, I didn't search before writing it, but you probably mean:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/127172

But that is missing the NO-PYTHON bit in GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS (did you
forget it there, or was it part of some other patch that also didn't get
applied?).

Also, I am tempted to move the GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS invocation _up_. It
is about reading config and should probably come before we start doing
_anything_.

So maybe this instead:

-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

Without this, test-lib checks that the git_remote_helpers
directory has been built. However, if we are building
without python, we will not have done anything at all in
that directory, and test-lib's sanity check will fail.

We bump the inclusion of GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS further up in
test-lib; it contains configuration, and as such should be
read before we do any checks (and in this particular case,
we need its value to do our check properly).

Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
---
I moved the BUILD-OPTIONS thing to just above the beginning of the
"have you built anything" checks, but after all of the function
definitions. But perhaps it should simply go at the very top of the
script. After all, in the case of "make NO_PYTHON=1 test", those
variables will already be defined at the very beginning of the script.

 Makefile      |    1 +
 t/test-lib.sh |    6 +++---
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 42744a4..443565e 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1743,6 +1743,7 @@ GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS: .FORCE-GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS
 	@echo TAR=\''$(subst ','\'',$(subst ','\'',$(TAR)))'\' >>$@
 	@echo NO_CURL=\''$(subst ','\'',$(subst ','\'',$(NO_CURL)))'\' >>$@
 	@echo NO_PERL=\''$(subst ','\'',$(subst ','\'',$(NO_PERL)))'\' >>$@
+	@echo NO_PYTHON=\''$(subst ','\'',$(subst ','\'',$(NO_PYTHON)))'\' >>$@
 
 ### Detect Tck/Tk interpreter path changes
 ifndef NO_TCLTK
diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
index 4a40520..2d523fe 100644
--- a/t/test-lib.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib.sh
@@ -632,13 +632,15 @@ GIT_CONFIG_NOSYSTEM=1
 GIT_CONFIG_NOGLOBAL=1
 export PATH GIT_EXEC_PATH GIT_TEMPLATE_DIR GIT_CONFIG_NOSYSTEM GIT_CONFIG_NOGLOBAL
 
+. ../GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS
+
 GITPERLLIB=$(pwd)/../perl/blib/lib:$(pwd)/../perl/blib/arch/auto/Git
 export GITPERLLIB
 test -d ../templates/blt || {
 	error "You haven't built things yet, have you?"
 }
 
-if test -z "$GIT_TEST_INSTALLED"
+if test -z "$GIT_TEST_INSTALLED" && test -z "$NO_PYTHON"
 then
 	GITPYTHONLIB="$(pwd)/../git_remote_helpers/build/lib"
 	export GITPYTHONLIB
@@ -653,8 +655,6 @@ if ! test -x ../test-chmtime; then
 	exit 1
 fi
 
-. ../GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS
-
 # Test repository
 test="trash directory.$(basename "$0" .sh)"
 test -n "$root" && test="$root/$test"
-- 
1.6.6.rc0.327.gd49b

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Brandon Casey]

Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:07:40PM -0600, Brandon Casey wrote:

>> ps. There's something eerily familiar about this patch.
> 
> Hmmm. Yes, I didn't search before writing it, but you probably mean:
> 
>   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/127172

:) yeah, that was it, nbd.

> But that is missing the NO-PYTHON bit in GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS (did you
> forget it there, or was it part of some other patch that also didn't get
> applied?).

It was 1/2 of that series.

> Also, I am tempted to move the GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS invocation _up_. It
> is about reading config and should probably come before we start doing
> _anything_.
> 
> So maybe this instead:

<snip the patch>

Looks fine to me.

No strong opinion on whether the BUILD-OPTIONS thing should be
at the beginning of the script, or in the place where you placed
it.

-brandon

Re: [PATCH] tests: handle NO_PYTHON setting

[Johan Herland]

On Monday 30 November 2009, Brandon Casey wrote:
> Jeff King wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:07:40PM -0600, Brandon Casey wrote:
> >> ps. There's something eerily familiar about this patch.
> >
> > Hmmm. Yes, I didn't search before writing it, but you probably mean:
> >
> >   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/127172
> >
> :) yeah, that was it, nbd.

Oops. I got Brandon's patches in my local tree, but I never got around to 
resend the series until Sverre picked up and refactored it. Sorry for the 
screwup.

> > But that is missing the NO-PYTHON bit in GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS (did you
> > forget it there, or was it part of some other patch that also didn't
> > get applied?).
> 
> It was 1/2 of that series.

Indeed.

> > Also, I am tempted to move the GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS invocation _up_. It
> > is about reading config and should probably come before we start doing
> > _anything_.
> >
> > So maybe this instead:
> 
> <snip the patch>
> 
> Looks fine to me.

As with Brandon's original patch, this is of course

Acked-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>

> No strong opinion on whether the BUILD-OPTIONS thing should be
> at the beginning of the script, or in the place where you placed
> it.

Me neither.


...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net