From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] git: continue alias lookup on EACCES errors Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:30:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20120328043058.GD30251@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120327175933.GA1716@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120327180503.GB4659@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v4nt9j1m3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: James Pickens , Git ML To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Mar 28 06:31:08 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SCkXL-00066w-FY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:31:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751079Ab2C1EbC (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:31:02 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:34886 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750804Ab2C1EbB (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:31:01 -0400 Received: (qmail 11009 invoked by uid 107); 28 Mar 2012 04:31:19 -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; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:31:19 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:30:58 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v4nt9j1m3.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 Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:16:36PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > If git receives an EACCES error while trying to execute an > > external command, we currently give up and report the error. > > However, the EACCES may be caused by an inaccessible > > directory in the user's PATH. > > Regardless of EACCES/ENOENT change we discussed, the observable behaviour > should be testable. Something like this? Yes, though I held back on writing tests, because I don't think we've quite decided what the behavior _should_ be. Should we be differentiating "chmod -x /bin/ls" from "chmod -x /bin"? Should we be continuing alias lookup on EACCES? Should we print edit-distance suggestions on EACCES? I think the four cases from my previous email would be reasonable things to test, but I wasn't sure what the expected outcomes should look like. -Peff