From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/14] remote-testgit: report success after an import Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:19:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20121102171949.GA28958@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1351821738-17526-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <1351821738-17526-10-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <5093D193.3030108@gmail.com> <5093EFF4.5080308@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Stefano Lattarini , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin , Elijah Newren , Ilari Liusvaara , Sverre Rabbelier To: Felipe Contreras X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 02 18:20:09 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 1TUKuc-0008A3-9e for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:20:06 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760871Ab2KBRTx (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:19:53 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:54781 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758141Ab2KBRTw (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 13:19:52 -0400 Received: (qmail 7190 invoked by uid 107); 2 Nov 2012 17:20:36 -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; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:20:36 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:19:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 05:19:33PM +0100, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > In any case, I agree that having a clean, understandable code as a > > starting point is better than having a more "portable" but trickier > > one right away. If it will need converting to POSIX, that can be > > done as a follow up (and as we've both noticed, this would be the > > only point where such a conversion might be problematic -- the other > > changes would be trivial, almost automatic). > > As things are the options are: > > 1) Remove this code and move to POSIX sh. People looking for reference > might scratch their heads as to why 'git push' is not showing the > update. > 2) Keep this code and remain in bash. > > Until we have a: > > 3) Replace this code with a clean POSIX sh alternative > > I would rather vote for 2) I'm fine with bash. The critical thing is that it not break people's "make test" if they do not have bash (or do not have bash as /bin/bash). -Peff