From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] t: Replace 'perl' by $PERL_PATH Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:59:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20120612145937.GA9200@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1339441313-5296-1-git-send-email-vfr@lyx.org> <7v1ull7j9k.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20120612123454.GA25407@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v4nqg4lzb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: vfr@lyx.org, git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 12 16:59:46 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 1SeSZL-0005jw-No for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:59:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752049Ab2FLO7k (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:59:40 -0400 Received: from 99-108-225-23.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.225.23]:51054 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751443Ab2FLO7j (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:59:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 20771 invoked by uid 107); 12 Jun 2012 14:59:40 -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; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:59:40 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:59:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v4nqg4lzb.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, Jun 12, 2012 at 07:56:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > >> I personally do not mind if we do this consistently, but I am not > >> sure your $PERL_PATH that is not quoted is the right way to invoke > >> it; look for PERL_PATH in t/ to see the existing uses. > > > > My biggest concern is placing an extra portability burden on > > test-writers (who will inevitably forget, and won't notice because what > > they are doing is only broken on obscure systems). Is there a way we can > > hide this behind a perl() shell function or something? > > I am hoping that writing 'perl' without any adornment will hopefully > stand out like a sore thumb if all perl invocations in existing code > are spelled '"$PERL_PATH"'. We forbid "! git cmd" and tell people > to write "test_must_fail git cmd" instead, and I think it has worked > reasonably well. I am not confident, but I guess we will see. :) -Peff