Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I think (4) and (5) are the only things that actually change the > behavior in a meaningful way. But they're a bit more hacky and > repetitive than I'd like. Especially given that I'm not really sure > we're solving an interesting problem. I'm happy enough with the patch as > shown, and I do not recall anybody complaining about the current > behavior of these options. OK. Thanks for thinking it through. >> There is a long outstanding NEEDSWORK comment in help.c that wonders >> if we want to embed contents from GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS in the resulting >> binary, and the distinction Dscho brought up between "build" and >> "test" phases would start to matter even more once we go in that >> direction. > > I guess you're implying having a GIT-BUILD-OPTIONS and a > GIT-TEST-OPTIONS here. I admit that my thinking did not go that far to introduce the latter, as "git version --how-did-we-build-this-exact-git" only needs the former. But you're right that some information given at the top-level must be stored somewhere t/test-lib.sh reads in order to allow us run tests from outside Makefile (your point 1.)
