Hi Junio, On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > write_script is a semantically unambiguous way to specify what we *want*. > > And it would allow us to handle chmod specifically for Windows *in one > > place only*. > > Correct. write_script, for the intended target of the helper, is a > way to write a script that can later be invoked by the test with the > name "$1". And whose executable bit is set, contingent on the POSIXPERM prereq. > It is conceivable for write_script on UNIX to be writing > into "$1" while Windows version to be writing into "$1.bat" Oy vey. Good thing you did not see my first reaction. Shell scripts and batch scripts have *very* different semantics. Therefore it would be a major nightmare (for me, not for you) to support writing them *using the same write_script invocation*. Let's just not go there. > But the way the test uses this exec.sh script is not consistent with > that. exec.sh for this test is merely a data, whose content must > exactly match what later tests expect, i.e. it wants it to begin with > "#!/bin/sh" and its execute bit on, even though the test does not have > no intention to run it as a script. The important part, of course, is "and its execute bit on" which makes it a moot point to ask whether we intend to execute the script or not. A script is what we want, and a script is what we write. Therefore, write_script is what we call. With the $2 fix-up to keep DrMicha happy. Ciao, Dscho -- 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