On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:42:26AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Yes, though I held back on writing tests, because I don't think we've > > quite decided what the behavior _should_ be. Should we be > > differentiating "chmod -x /bin/ls" from "chmod -x /bin"? Should we be > > continuing alias lookup on EACCES? Should we print edit-distance > > suggestions on EACCES? > > I am leaning to think that it would be the least surprising if we treat as > if /bin/ls does not even exist if /bin is not searchable. If /bin/ls is > unreadable or unexecutable but /bin is searchable, then we _know_ it > exists, and we follow the usual exec*p() rule to ignore it so "git ls" > would try to find an alias and when all else fails will give the edit > distance suggestions but should exclude /bin/ls from candidates. If /bin > itself is unsearchable, we do not even know what it contains, so it is > needless to say that /bin/ls will not be part of suggestion candidates. That sounds sensible to me. I think it involves writing our own execvp, though, right? If we use stock execvp, we can't tell the difference between the two cases. OTOH, I think we already have an implementation in compat/mingw. > That way, the only thing people _could_ complain about is "I have a > directory $HOME/sillybin in my $PATH but do not have an executable bit on > it. When I try to run 'git stupid', 'git-stupid' in that diretory is not > executed, and I do not even get an error message to point out that I am > missing the executable bit on $HOME/sillybin directory". And you can say > "Ah, just like the shell. So make sure you have necessary permission bits > on things". Very easy and straightforward to explain and understand. Agreed. -Peff -- 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