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 15:40:45 -0400 Message-ID: <20120328194045.GC29019@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20120327175933.GA1716@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20120327180503.GB4659@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v4nt9j1m3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120328043058.GD30251@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vaa30wrjx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120328174841.GA27876@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v62dowpdu.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 21:40:55 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 1SCyjl-00017O-A2 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:40:53 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756316Ab2C1Tks (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:40:48 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:36282 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755259Ab2C1Tkr (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:40:47 -0400 Received: (qmail 20633 invoked by uid 107); 28 Mar 2012 19:41:06 -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 15:41:06 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:40:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v62dowpdu.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 Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:29:17AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > That sounds sensible to me. I think it involves writing our own > > execvp, though, right? If we use stock execvp, we can't tell the > > difference between the two cases. > > The stock exec*p() will not hit "/bin/ls" in either case, so we will give > "'ls' is not a git command", without having to differenciate it. That is > what I meant by "we follow the usual rule to ignore it". > > We already have the code necessary to enumerate the possible commands from > components of the PATH in order to give suggestion, so we can run it > after seeing exec*p() failure to see if we did not see any "ls", or we saw > "ls" but it was not executable. No need to penalize the normal case, no? Yes, we can differentiate after the fact. Though I think it ends up being almost the same code as just implementing execvp in the first place. -Peff