Re: [PATCH] t0021, t5615: use $PWD instead of $(pwd) in PATH-like shell variables

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Junio,

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > We have to use $PWD instead of $(pwd) because on Windows the latter
> > would add a C: style path to bash's Unix-style $PATH variable, which
> > becomes confused by the colon after the drive letter. ($PWD is a
> > Unix-style path.)
> >
> > In the case of GIT_ALTERNATE_OBJECT_DIRECTORIES, bash on Windows
> > assembles a Unix-style path list with the colon as separators. It
> > converts the value to a Windows-style path list with the semicolon as
> > path separator when it forwards the variable to git.exe. The same
> > confusion happens when bash's original value is contaminated with
> > Windows style paths.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Am 11.11.2016 um 18:11 schrieb Johannes Sixt:
> >> Am 11.11.2016 um 18:06 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> >>> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> >>> ...
> >
> > When the MSYS program such as bash invokes a non-MSYS program, it
> > translates the Unix-style paths in arguments and environment variables
> > to Windows stlye. We only have to ensure that we inject only Unix-style
> > paths in these places so as not to confuse the conversion algorithm.
> > Most of the time, we do not have to worry.
> >
> > On the other hand, when we write a path to a file that git.exe consumes
> > or receive a path from git.exe, i.e., when the path travels through
> > stdout and stdin, no automatic translation happens (which is quite
> > understandable), and we have do the translation explicitly. An example
> > for such a case is when we write a .git/info/alternates file via the
> > shell.
> >
> >> A simpler fix is to use $PWD instead of $(pwd). I'll submit a patch in a
> >> moment.
> >
> > Here it is. I had proposed the t0021 part earlier, but it fell through
> > the cracks during the temporary maintainer change.
> 
> Thanks.  Dscho, does this fix both of these issues to you?

Apparently it does because the CI jobs for `master` and for `next` pass.
The one for `pu` still times out, of course.

Ciao,
Dscho



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]