From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change GIT-VERSION-GEN to call git commands with "git" not "git-". Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:20:37 -0700 Message-ID: <7vpsi58rkq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 23 03:20:42 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiLZh-00019Z-9i for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 23 May 2006 03:20:41 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750975AbWEWBUj (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2006 21:20:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750831AbWEWBUi (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2006 21:20:38 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao10.cox.net ([68.230.241.29]:10896 "EHLO fed1rmmtao10.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750793AbWEWBUi (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2006 21:20:38 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060523012038.ZJID18458.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Mon, 22 May 2006 21:20:38 -0400 To: git@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: (seanlkml@sympatico.ca's message of "Mon, 22 May 2006 00:39:52 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Sean writes: > GIT-VERSION-GEN can incorrectly return a default version of > "v1.3.GIT" because it tries to execute git commands using the > "git-cmd" format that expects all git commands to be in the $PATH. > Convert these to "git cmd" format so that a proper answer is > returned even when the git commands have been moved out of the > $PATH and into a $gitexecdir. IIRC, the reason we spelled it as "git-describe" with a dash is ancient git wrapper said "not a git command" when given "describe" which it did not understand without failing. I think it has been long enough since we introduced "git describe", so this would be OK.