Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:35:07PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> > 1. My patch "t0021:..." contains an unrelated change to t4030 (it >> > changes a /bin/sh to $SHELL_PATH) that is not necessary. I included it >> > in my first version of the patch, but later noticed that we already >> > have many similar uses of /bin/sh instead of $SHELL_PATH in test >> > scriptlets and decided to remove the change, but I only changed the >> > commit message and forgot to unstage t4030. >> >> While you are technically correct that the change you made in t4030 is not >> justified by the commit log message in the sense that the "hexdump" script >> will go through run_command() interface and is not subject to the special >> rules filter writers need to keep in mind, the patch text itself is a good >> change, isn't it? Do you want me to split the commit into two (one with >> the current message with a patch only to t0021, and another to t4030 with >> a justification like "SHELL_PATH is what the user told us to use")? > > If we are going to do the t4030 change, there are a ton of other spots > that use /bin/sh directly (I counted 38 with > > grep -n /bin/sh * | grep -v :1: > > ). Should we be changing all of them? > > It is slightly just code churn, because the scripts are so simple that > even broken shells like Solaris /bin/sh run them just fine. The only > real advantage is that it slightly future-proofs them against somebody > making them more complex. Ok, it is a single liner that invokes Perl, so hardcoded /bin/sh is a much lessor offence. -- 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