On 27.01.15 23:20, Junio C Hamano wrote: > How about extending it like this (not tested)? Thanks, this looks good: the test is more extensive, I can test this next week. > > -- >8 -- > From: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:39:01 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] test-lib.sh: set prerequisite SANITY by testing what we really need > > What we wanted out of the SANITY precondition is that the filesystem > behaves sensibly with permission bits settings. > > - You should not be able to remove a file in a read-only directory, > > - You should not be able to tell if a file in a directory exists if > the directory lacks read or execute permission bits. > > We used to cheat by approximating that condition with "is the / > writable?" test and/or "are we running as root?" test. Neither test > is sufficient or appropriate in more exotic environments like > Cygwin. How about going this direction: We used to cheat by approximating that condition with "is the / writable?" test and/or "are we running as root?" test. Neither test is sufficient or appropriate, especially in environments like Cygwin, Mingw or Mac OS X. -- 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
