From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D89613A27B for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:55:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720482930; cv=none; b=dqbRZ6XnQiXAMs4RrJ0UGc8Hg8lArDX7y1vo6sN8WM1UOnAGao7xuj5kk475v2RfqVIO3+/KV+MR0Bx0LDcPMRvF8WHgrfrRrmcmd/5Stm3i/7kqY9EcIaZ0egMxzISMiy9nxolxcGzb+NNhtDiyNDfsRKm7YLnpep035QA4sB4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720482930; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CFmbvWJTUSoJFIYNux23HJG9AKK7X+PXUJs2ExHP0Bo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=dtSZ+5HrEWSG4H34UnTb0NGzOySaAV0Q5sfKQ2ErhtVhobYKprZe+nIOuNBrwnpFEFOyxuZ7vUPXHoq7XplB6YRHO/xA4CeSn9eX0mr1c8WNZ1Hl6fDkH0fOctUlC8HCMgDzfKJn7ND/sMZZcoqVqBjhJUn/BcXHc8gCPALSMUg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=xV3IMo1+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="xV3IMo1+" Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD712E230; Mon, 8 Jul 2024 19:55:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=CFmbvWJTUSoJFIYNux23HJG9AKK7X+PXUJs2Ex HP0Bo=; b=xV3IMo1+Jd6GS2zc/Ji/b1B9QbAhr+7JTLAtmdah3hLmUENcXrKVX9 NrFLd/O93JZIoEvCVTe0oWXZax04cwpPS/Mw9wtuMCH1wdmTvc5b80RPETNdgpk5 0DykJUnrwmXR/SYPcQ8jm5zhgbpnmT1d1bli2Y+XBUAYa5r27/9h8= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FE52E22F; Mon, 8 Jul 2024 19:55:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.219.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E302F2E22E; Mon, 8 Jul 2024 19:55:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: "brian m. carlson" Cc: Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH] var(win32): do report the GIT_SHELL_PATH that is actually used In-Reply-To: (brian m. carlson's message of "Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:40:34 +0000") References: Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 16:55:25 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8C8875BC-3D85-11EF-8717-5B6DE52EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com "brian m. carlson" writes: >> The "look on the %PATH%" strategy does not make any sense as an >> implementation for getting GIT_SHELL_PATH, which answers "what is >> the shell this instanciation of Git was built to work with?", at >> least to me. Maybe I am missing some knowledge on limitations on >> Windows and Git for Windows why it is done that way. > > Well, it may be that that's the approach that Git for Windows takes to > look up the shell. (I don't know for certain.) > If that _is_ what it does, then that's absolutely the value we > want because we want to use whatever shell Git for Windows uses. > I will say it's a risky approach because it could well also find a > Cygwin or MINGW shell (or, if it were called bash, WSL), but we > really want whatever Git for Windows does here. Yeah, absolutely it is risky unless it is doing the "we are relocatable, so where is the 'sh' _we_ installed?", which is what I would expect GIT_SHELL_PATH to be. > That's because external users who rely on Git for Windows to furnish a > POSIX shell will want to know the path, and this variable is the best > way to do that (and the reason I added it). If Git for Windows furnishes programs other than POSIX shell, paths to which external users would also want to learn, what happens? GIT_PERL_PATH, GIT_WISH_PATH, etc.? Locate them on PATH themselves shouldn't be rocket science (and instead of locating, just spawning them themselves would be even easier, I would presume). Thanks.