Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: > I actually like the rationale you mentioned in the thread (perhaps in the > original proposed commit message as well) that we should ask the freshly > built git to describe the version if available, falling back to whichever > git of random vintage found on the original $PATH. > > If it weren't for $X [*1*], my preference would have been (as I said in > the discussion) to run ./git if available locally. > > But I think your "deal with details like $X to figure out the name of the > freshly built git binary is in the Makefile, and pass it via GIT variable > to GIT-VERSION-GEN" is a sensible approach. I do not remember if your > patch gave precedence to an installed git on the original $PATH or a > freshly built one, though---the precedent probably does not matter in > practice, and favoring the one found on $PATH over freshly built one does > have an advantage if we were to support cross compilation (I have a > suspicion that the current setup does not). > > Thanks. Junio, I think you forgot to take a follow-up action on this thread after sending this message. The patch favors the git program in the current directory. Do you want to ask Matthias to resend the patch with an updated log message? P.S. a happy birthday ;-) -- Nanako Shiraishi http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html