Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> "Kyle J. McKay" <mackyle@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> If I'm the only one getting a wrong meaning from the comments, then no
>> reason to change them.
>
> I agree that the description does not read well with the work-around
> already there. I am not sure what would be a better way to phrase
> it, though.
Here is a tentative rewrite at the beginning and the end of rebase-am:
# The whole contents of the file is run by dot-sourcing this
# file from inside a shell function. It used to be that
# "return"s we see below were not inside any function, and
# expected to return from the function that dot-sourced us.
#
# However, FreeBSD /bin/sh misbehaves on such a construct and
# continues to run the statements that follow such a "return".
# As a work-around, we introduce an extra layer of a function
# here, and immediately call it after defining it.
git_rebase__am () {
...
}
# ... and then we call the whole thing.
git_rebase__am
By the way, you have this in your log message:
... the git-rebase--*.sh scripts have used a "return" to return
from the "dot" command that runs them. While this is allowed by
POSIX,...
Is it "this is allowed", or is it "this should be the way and shells
that do not do so are buggy"?
--
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