Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Johannes Schindelin schrieb: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote: >>> How about: >>> >>> eval "$author_script" >>> GIT_AUTHOR_NAME="$GIT_AUTHOR_NAME" \ >>> GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL="$GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL" \ >>> GIT_AUTHOR_DATE="$GIT_AUTHOR_DATE" \ >>> $USE_OUTPUT git commit -F "$MSG" $EDIT_COMMIT >>> >>> and if you dislike that, put the two questionable lines in parenthesis. >> >> That looks ugly. I'd rather have something like >> >> eval "$USE_OUTPUT $author_script git commit -F \"$MSG\" $EDIT_COMMIT" >> >> but I'm not quite certain if that is enough, what with the funny >> characters people put into path names these days ($MSG points to >> "$DOTEST"/message). > > I, too, find it ugly, but I think it's the most readable way to do > it. Your version is certainly underquoted. Proper quoting in my book would be eval "$USE_OUTPUT $author_script git commit -F" '"$MSG"' "$EDIT_COMMIT" (I am not sure I am correct about $EDIT_COMMIT, not having looked at its definition). Important is the double quotation of $MSG to keep it as a single argument. > I poked around a bit, but one major obstacle is that the assignments > in $author_script are on separate lines, which you would have to > splice into a single line before you can insert them in the eval. Hm? Why? Newlines separate assignments just as reliable as spaces do. They are primarily special to the tty as line separators, not the shell as such. -- David Kastrup - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
