From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-web--browse: invoke kfmclient directly Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:44:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20110919204448.GA3562@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110918032933.GA17977@sigill.intra.peff.net> <1316341224-4359-1-git-send-email-judge.packham@gmail.com> <20110918183846.GA31176@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vvcso9zzi.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110919182049.GA26115@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v62ko9scw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Chris Packham , git@vger.kernel.org, chriscool@tuxfamily.org, jepler@unpythonic.net To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Sep 19 22:45:04 2011 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R5ki2-0004kU-1Z for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:44:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756565Ab1ISUow (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:44:52 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:37653 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756543Ab1ISUou (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:44:50 -0400 Received: (qmail 9736 invoked by uid 107); 19 Sep 2011 20:49:48 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:49:48 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:44:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v62ko9scw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 01:42:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Yeah, I agree, and the dq around $browser_cmd is kind of important, too, > >> for that to work and be readable. > > > > Oops, good catch. Probably the most readable version would be: > > > > eval "\"$browser_cmd\"" '"$@"' > > Actually I didn't mean that double dq. > > In fact, if browser_cmd is meant to be split as a shell snippet, I do not > think you want the string seen by eval to have dq around the expanded > version of $browser_cmd. And I tend to prefer feeding a single string to > eval, so the version in your message I quoted originally looks good to me. > > Unless I am missing something here...? Oh right. Sorry, I read your comment, thought that's what you meant, and that I had overlooked something. Forgetting that it was intentional to leave off the quotes inside. So yeah, my original is right. I just got turned around in all of the discussion. Sorry for the noise. -Peff