On 26.01.13 22:43, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> writes: > >> Do we really need "which" to detect if frotz is installed? > I think we all know the answer to that question is no, but why is > that a relevant question in the context of this discussion? One of > us may be very confused. > > I thought the topic of this discussion was that, already knowing > that "which" should never be used anywhere in our scripts, you are > trying to devise a mechanical way to catch newcomers' attempts to > use it in their changes, in order to prevent patches that add use of > "which" to be sent for review to waste our time. I was illustrating > that the approach to override "which" in a shell function for test > scripts will not be a useful solution for that goal. Yes, the diskussion went away. I would rather see the check-non-portable-shell.pl enabled per default. It looks as if the "which" command is hard to find, when we want a minimal risk of false positves. I can see different solutions: 1) We can make a much simpler expression which only catches the most common usage of which, like "if whitch foo". This will not catch lines like if test -x "$(which foo 2>/dev/null)" But I think the -x is not a useful anyway, because which should only list command which have the executable bit set. 2) We drop the which from check-non-portable-shell.pl I'll send a patch for 1) /Torsten -- 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