From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] t9100: fix breakage when SHELL_PATH is not /bin/sh Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:35:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20160208193509.GA30554@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <982f6f499c988e1063275e2951c9856d622a83f3.1454872161.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20160208135013.GA27054@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160208163700.GA22929@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Michael J Gruber , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 08 20:35:19 2016 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 1aSrah-0007OA-8Z for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 20:35:19 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753443AbcBHTfM (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:35:12 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:39387 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751075AbcBHTfM (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:35:12 -0500 Received: (qmail 13292 invoked by uid 102); 8 Feb 2016 19:35:11 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:35:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 8232 invoked by uid 107); 8 Feb 2016 19:35:13 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:35:13 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:35:09 -0500 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 Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 08:31:54PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, Jeff King wrote: > > > Assuming your patch works on Windows > > If it re-introduces that chmod +x, it won't. > > Please note that my *original* patch actually only guarded the chmod +x, > but Junio suggested switching to write_script and since it passed the test > suite here, I though it would be safe. > > I still think write_script is the better alternative. I'm confused why it matters. write_script() unconditionally calls "chmod +x", doesn't it? I just double-checked its definition in test-lib-function.sh; am I missing some Windows-specific magic that kicks in? > So why not just prefix it with `SHELL_PATH=/bin/sh`? But then what is write_script buying us? -Peff