On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 05:48:35PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: > >> Occasionally submodule code could execute new commands with GIT_DIR set >> to some submodule. GIT_TRACE prints just the command line which makes it >> hard to tell that it's not really executed on this repository. >> >> Print env variables in this case. Note that the code deliberately ignore >> variables unsetting because there are so many of them (to keep git >> environment clean for the next process) and really hard to read. > > I like this, and I'm pretty sure it would have helped me debug at least > once in the past. I did notice one funny thing, though I think it was > largely there before. > > The output for a single command is pretty shell-like due to the quoting: > > $ GIT_TRACE=1 ./git upload-pack . >/dev/null > [...]run_command: 'git-upload-pack' '.' > > You could copy and paste that to a shell if you wanted. And with > environment variables, that remains so: > > $ GIT_TRACE=1 ./git ls-remote https://github.com/git/git >/dev/null > [...]run_command: 'GIT_DIR=.git' 'git-remote-https' 'https://[...]' > > But if we're actually running a command via the shell, it all gets > quoted as one argument: > > $ GIT_TRACE=1 GIT_PAGER='foo | bar' ./git log > [...]run_command: 'LV=-c' 'foo | bar' > > which is kind of weird, as that's not something that can be run in a > shell. This isn't introduced by your patch at all, but I noticed it more > because of the shell-like environment variable output. I think you just found an argument to change my "meh" with regards to quoting to "need to fix" because I also often copy/paste these commands. I thought about it and assumed shells would still recognize 'name=value' assignments without actually testing it. > We actually used to print a separate: > > exec: /bin/sh -c 'foo | bar' > > line when we invoked a shell, which would arguably be the right place to > show the env variables for such a case. But that went away with > 3967e25be1 (run-command: prepare command before forking, 2017-04-19). > > I think it might be helpful if we added back in "/bin/sh -c" to the > run_command line when "use_shell" is in effect (and when we're not doing > our "skip the shell" trickery). But that's totally orthogonal to your > patch. > > And anyway, it's just tracing output, so I don't think it's incredibly > important either way. It was just something I noticed while looking at > your patch's output. Noted. I might do it if it's not super complex. -- Duy
