Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> But it's probably better that we inject valgrind command >> from inside bin-wrappers script, the same way we inject gdb, I think. > > For the best of both worlds, we should recreate bin-wrappers in > test-lib.sh (i.e. the valgrind way), not in Makefile. > > Somewhat > unrelated, but because topdir is getting really crowded and > bin-wrappers is used for the test suite only, it should be moved > inside t/ (i'm going to move all test-* to t/ too, later). Weren't there people who pointed their bin-wrappers/ with $PATH to test/use freshly baked Git before they convince themselves that they want to install it? Not building it from the top-level Makefile and moving it to elsewhere would be two breakages for them. I am not sure if that is a good idea. Moving test-* sources out of the top-level is a good idea, and placing test-* binaries somewhere other than the top-level is also a good idea. Just like t/lib-*.sh are helpers for tests, these are also test helpers that happen to be written in C and compiled, so I don't have a strong objection to make t/ the new location for them--a different location (e.g. a new "test-helpers/" directory) is also something I can go with. Thanks. In any case, are these two messages objections to J6t's fix, or are you fine with the fix for 2.8-rc1 and merely raising ideas to redo it in a different (i.e. your) way after 2.8 final, or are you planning to do a fix in a different way for 2.8-rc1? -- 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