Hi Junio, On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Dan Jacques <dnj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> In Git for Windows, we have an almost identical patch: > >> > >> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/bdd739bb2b0b > >> > >> We just guard the call to system_path() behind a test whether podir is > >> already absolute, but these days, system_path() does that itself. > >> > >> I am too little of a Perl expert to be helpful with the other patches, but > >> I would gladly runa build & test on Windows if you direct me to an > >> easily-pullable branch. > > > > Oh interesting - I've only peripherally looked at Git-for-Windows code, > > since Chromium uses its packages verbatim (thanks, BTW!). I think you're > > correct though - this patch set seems to be doing the same thing. > > > > I've been force-pushing my changes to the "runtime-prefix" branch of my Git > > fork for travis.ci testing. The latest commit on that branch adds a > > "config.mak" for testing, so one commit from the branch head will contain > > the sum set of this patch series applied at (or near) Git's master branch: > > > > https://github.com/danjacques/git/tree/runtime-prefix~1 > > > > Let me know if this is what you are looking for, and if I can offer any > > help with Windows testing. Thanks! > > FWIW, I plan to include this somewhere on 'pu' for today's > integration cycle, so dj/runtime-prefix topic branch would also be > what can easily be grabbed. Thanks for the offer. Having said that, I prefer to work with Dan's branch directly, as that would be the branch that would need changes in case I need to patch anything. It's better to save the time on the roundtrip through your branch (that may display other side effects, too, as you almost certainly chose a different base commit than Dan did). Also, I could easily offer the changes in a PR which is *a lot* more convenient on my side. Ciao, Dscho
