So among the options we have so far, which way should we go, or leave it as is? On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:15 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> I may have rushed to judgement. wrap-for-bin.sh has always been the >>> dependency for bin-wrappers/*. If we force that file to change, then >>> bin-wrappers/* will be recreated when switching branches. So how about >>> this? >> >> I do not think you are "force updating wrap-for-bin" in any way in >> the patch, though. You are building it in such a way that it does >> not have to get updated within the revision that contains e6e7530 >> (assuming that this will be queued directly on top it and merged to >> everywhere e6e7530 is contained). > > Yep. > >> The new case/esac looks somewhat bad (its knowing that where test-* >> lives, test-* is the only thing that is special, etc. troubles me at >> the same time that case/esac is funnily formated). > > We could just make some random changes in this file. That would have > the same effect. > >> Where does "@@PATH@@" come from and who rewrites it? Is that a >> misspelt "@@PROG@@"? > > Yep. Should have run make distclean before testing :( > -- > Duy -- Duy -- 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