James Pickens <jepicken@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> James Pickens <jepicken@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> I'm not claiming that it's sane to have a broken PATH, but as I >>> mentioned in an earlier email, sometimes my PATH gets broken through >>> no fault of my own, and it would be nice if Git could be more helpful >>> in that case. >> >> Hrm, so which was more helpful in diagnosing the broken PATH? Git by >> letting you be aware that there is some problem, or your shell by keeping >> me oblivious of the issue? > > In this case the broken parts of my PATH were completely uninteresting > to me - they didn't contain any executables that I would ever use. So > if it didn't break my Git aliases, I could have continued working with > the broken PATH and never known or cared that it was broken. > > But I get your point - sometimes it's more helpful to let the user > know something is amiss than try to guess what was intended. That was not the "point" of my question. In fact, there was no point. I may be a mean person and may often throw rhetorical questions to embarrass others, but I am not *that* mean to always ask only rhetorical questions ;-). Judging from your answer, it would have been better for you if Git didn't even tell you that there was an error due to an unreadable directory. And if that is the case, "Git could be more helpful in that case" will lead us in one direction (i.e. "we simply ignore EACCESS and treat it as ENOENT"), which is a quite different direction from what others discussed and suggested in the thread (i.e. "we give more detailed diagnosis, perhaps saying "your PATH has /usr/local/bin but it cannot be read, so we cannot tell git-frotz exists there or not"). I just wanted to see what was the desired behaviour you have in mind. -- 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