From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D03720960 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 21:35:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752720AbdDMVfu (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Apr 2017 17:35:50 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f182.google.com ([209.85.192.182]:35464 "EHLO mail-pf0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752701AbdDMVft (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Apr 2017 17:35:49 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f182.google.com with SMTP id i5so33690857pfc.2 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:35:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=L0Mgp43tqsb+ORq8y9ejknqEmvbl5SlzmaDnTswMJWI=; b=i0Onh0dCNqriqF9Ccz8UgEbJMXJ6CeD+8xHIxkRAvmZiN6ttQc20/Jc/VkeEO9yOi4 DgnT+9409QRInBHv/k2OKAqPvQuKpBJ99+gVBAhhJgve2+q4B0rUHNlGTSjOE6Vp2Ew2 tcVC339OkmfIZSKUzhLiV+JY97EgH6UGg92NGXxtTVWXZhnUtXiHW+szP1IqqqsiK1No EyhACiUGBKZWAOeUNIK+Skglkf8PVtNAvH46CHDOEC0B1bmGEf8lZ5tGKv/5/MryJMFx QtW6aVFm8imBZYnW6AMf+puAyu7dgaxDIOjhO7FrqdOAdW7affeX6FZtsOPyD32T5/0V IbtQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=L0Mgp43tqsb+ORq8y9ejknqEmvbl5SlzmaDnTswMJWI=; b=bUUX0mYexzqHN91p2GhjC4sdiLoZvjh9AvLq/WXSr2BCGddfZWgWtFcSblREDiwzRq IL0XMajJbt4rmsq0jF8KXAa8YINQt8thv+Vf8RLKrJQenXvx66oxVnH9wakv3G+TA95E /H20Qw408Lm1LAZCeZDGoTo8LK8iWLWIIO0hY7+Z/7VrY5qnNp/Y5tftvtPnr4IkGFt6 1u3voAiMO13hq9UhYnA4MapV2BrbKoK/nRhtp+z3dlauASOSQZIZdLG40LCEZ5/7faal rZrS+ZHAHnHrsZd1vcabo9aZ091yhlPGyxgmAjGAdvdDtLnrvK7L7WfMBvGdDK+C0Y3l cOpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/49eBF0PpOYSzD43ryDYAa/rBYSwo/tDHohOefB9xD7C1+VwUEc oRzNYsllX/y1DCZS X-Received: by 10.84.222.139 with SMTP id x11mr5524984pls.112.1492119348239; Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:0:1000:5b10:1426:66e2:260b:9db9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m69sm44192385pfc.33.2017.04.13.14.35.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:35:46 -0700 From: Brandon Williams To: Eric Wong Cc: Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] t5550: use write_script to generate post-update hook Message-ID: <20170413213546.GA115420@google.com> References: <20170410234919.34586-1-bmwill@google.com> <20170413183252.4713-1-bmwill@google.com> <20170413183252.4713-2-bmwill@google.com> <20170413204358.GA10084@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <20170413205947.GA32659@starla> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170413205947.GA32659@starla> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 04/13, Eric Wong wrote: > Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > Brandon Williams wrote: > > > The post-update hooks created in t5550-http-fetch-dumb.sh is missing the > > > "!#/bin/sh" line which can cause issues with portability. Instead > > > create the hook using the 'write_script' function which includes the > > > proper "#!" line. > > > This would allow later patches to regress a previously supported > > behavior. > > > > I agree that it's silly to test that behavior as a side-effect of this > > unrelated test, but I don't think we want to lose the test coverage. > > I was about to write something similar about this regression. > The new execve-using code should handle ENOEXEC as execvpe does > and probably a new test for it needs to be written. Would it be enough to upon seeing a failed exec call and ENOEXEC to retry a single time, invoking the shell to attempt to interpret the command? -- Brandon Williams