Hi Dscho, On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 3:38 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, Elijah Newren wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Johannes Schindelin >> <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: <snip> >> That all looks great to me. But at this point, it seems like it's a >> full rewrite and your patch to submit (which I'd be happy to endorse >> in lieu of my own)... > > :-) > >> or do you want me to submit with you as author and me as committer? > > That would be my preference. I have not even tested what I wrote above... Sure, will do. >> Also, a side question: if we go this route, do we want to rename >> GIT_TEST_GDB to reflect its expanded usage? > > Sure. Probably GIT_TEST_DEBUGGER? Or GIT_TEST_DBG? Or GIT_TEST_DEBUG? > >> > Then your magic "GIT_WRAPPER" invocation would become a bit more explicit: >> > >> > debug --debugger=nemiver git $ARGS >> > debug -d "valgrind --tool=memcheck --track-origins=yes" git $ARGS >> >> No, for most (60-80%?) of my invocations, I wouldn't be able to use >> the debug function; only a minority of my uses are from within the >> testsuite. The rest are from the command line (I have >> git/bin-wrappers/ in my $PATH), > > Oy vey. bin-wrappers in your PATH? That's even worse than what I did in > the first two years of developing Git: I always ran `git` in-place. > However, I was bitten by a couple of bugs introduced while developing that > made it hard to recover (if I don't have a functional Git, I cannot use it > to go back to a working version, can I?). How do *you* deal with these > things? I also have an older system git in /usr/bin; if things go sideways, I just explicitly use '/usr/bin/git' instead of 'git'. >> > (In any case, "GIT_WRAPPER" is probably a name in want of being renamed.) >> >> Well, with your suggestion, it'd just be whatever that environment >> variable is named. I'm perfectly happy with something other than >> GIT_WRAPPER (or GIT_TEST_GDB). I'm not so good at coming up with such >> myself, but maybe something like GIT_DEBUGGER or GIT_DEBUG_WITH? > > I like both. Pick whatever you like, as long as it starts with `GIT_` and > is descriptive enough. Even `GIT_LAUNCH_THROUGH` would work, but > `GIT_DEBUGGER` seems to be the shortest that still makes sense. Cool, GIT_DEBUGGER sounds good to me, I'll just proceed with it.
