[PATCH] Mark gitk script executable

[PATCH] Mark gitk script executable

[Anders Kaseorg]

The executable bit on gitk-git/gitk was lost (accidentally it seems) by 
commit 62ba5143ec2ab9d4083669b1b1679355e7639cd5.  Put it back, so that 
gitk can be run directly from a git.git checkout.

Note that the script is already executable in gitk.git, just not in 
git.git.

Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <andersk@mit.edu>
---
 0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 mode change 100644 => 100755 gitk-git/gitk

diff --git a/gitk-git/gitk b/gitk-git/gitk
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
-- 
1.7.4-rc0

Re: [PATCH] Mark gitk script executable

[Junio C Hamano]

Anders Kaseorg <andersk@MIT.EDU> writes:

> The executable bit on gitk-git/gitk was lost (accidentally it seems) by 
> commit 62ba5143ec2ab9d4083669b1b1679355e7639cd5.  Put it back, so that 
> gitk can be run directly from a git.git checkout.
>
> Note that the script is already executable in gitk.git, just not in 
> git.git.

It did not lose the bit by accident but 62ba5143 pretty much was a
deliberate fix.  "gitk" is a source file, and its build product,
gitk-wish, is what is eventually installed with executable bit on.

Re: [PATCH] Mark gitk script executable

[Jonathan Nieder]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Anders Kaseorg <andersk@MIT.EDU> writes:

>> The executable bit on gitk-git/gitk was lost (accidentally it seems) by 
>> commit 62ba5143ec2ab9d4083669b1b1679355e7639cd5.  Put it back, so that 
>> gitk can be run directly from a git.git checkout.
>>
>> Note that the script is already executable in gitk.git, just not in 
>> git.git.
>
> It did not lose the bit by accident but 62ba5143 pretty much was a
> deliberate fix.  "gitk" is a source file, and its build product,
> gitk-wish, is what is eventually installed with executable bit on.

How does this case differ from other executable source files like
git-am.sh?

Re: [PATCH] Mark gitk script executable

[Junio C Hamano]

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Anders Kaseorg <andersk@MIT.EDU> writes:
>
>>> The executable bit on gitk-git/gitk was lost (accidentally it seems) by 
>>> commit 62ba5143ec2ab9d4083669b1b1679355e7639cd5.  Put it back, so that 
>>> gitk can be run directly from a git.git checkout.
>>>
>>> Note that the script is already executable in gitk.git, just not in 
>>> git.git.
>>
>> It did not lose the bit by accident but 62ba5143 pretty much was a
>> deliberate fix.  "gitk" is a source file, and its build product,
>> gitk-wish, is what is eventually installed with executable bit on.
>
> How does this case differ from other executable source files like
> git-am.sh?

Ok, strike that.

In the old days, some of us (but not me) used to value somewhat to be able
to run git-$frotz.sh from the build directory before installing, and having
the executable bit was in line with that philosophy.

I don't know if it still hold today, though.  For one thing, our Makefile
replace a lot more than it used to when building $(SCRIPTS) out of the
source files and git-$frotz.sh may not run in place as easily as before
anymore.

So it doesn't matter too much either way (and of course you can always say
"sh ./git-$frotz.sh" when it is not executable and the functioning of the
script does not depend on replacement done by the Makefile).

It seems that the majority is marked with executable bit, so just for the
sake of uniformity it probably is Ok to make it executable.  From a
purist's point of view, I'd rather see them uniformly marked as
non-executable, but as I said, it doesn't matter much to me (iow, meh).

The change needs to come from gitk repository, so I'll leave it up to Paul
;-)

Thanks for a sanity, Jonathan.

Re: [PATCH] Mark gitk script executable

[Anders Kaseorg]

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> The change needs to come from gitk repository, so I'll leave it up to Paul
> ;-)

No, the script has always been executable in gitk.git.  The patch should 
be applied directly to git.git to bring the two repositories in sync.

Anders

Re: [PATCH] Mark gitk script executable

[Junio C Hamano]

Anders Kaseorg <andersk@MIT.EDU> writes:

> On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> The change needs to come from gitk repository, so I'll leave it up to Paul
>> ;-)
>
> No, the script has always been executable in gitk.git.  The patch should 
> be applied directly to git.git to bring the two repositories in sync.

If that is the case perhaps the next pull will fix that ;-)

Re: [PATCH] Mark gitk script executable

[Anders Kaseorg]

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> If that is the case perhaps the next pull will fix that ;-)

Nope.  There’s nothing to pull; the current gitk.git master was already 
taken by the last pull.  Even once there are commits to pull, the common 
ancestor will be 6758ad94, in which the script is executable, so the 
script will remain non-executable in the merge result.  (And you can see 
for yourself that the last 28 pulls since 62ba5143 haven’t added the 
executable bit.)

The point is that 62ba5143 introduced a change to git.git that wasn’t in 
gitk.git, and that change will remain in git.git until it’s undone in 
git.git.

Anders