From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Quoting paths in tests Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:17:45 +0200 Message-ID: <47137689.9050907@viscovery.net> References: <4711486B.1050301@op5.se> <11924540291536-git-send-email-maillist@steelskies.com> <47136F71.1050107@viscovery.net> <8977E4C2-2C13-4C52-8FD9-CEEB5AA85B70@steelskies.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan del Strother X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 15 16:36:43 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IhQlZ-0000uB-8q for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:17:57 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758738AbXJOORt (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:17:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758228AbXJOORs (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:17:48 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:22429 "EHLO lilzmailso01.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751173AbXJOORr (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:17:47 -0400 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1IhQlC-0007Zn-T2; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:17:35 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.42] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8408169F; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:17:45 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: <8977E4C2-2C13-4C52-8FD9-CEEB5AA85B70@steelskies.com> X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jonathan del Strother schrieb: > On 15 Oct 2007, at 14:47, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> I don't see the point in changing an incorrect quoting to a different >> incorrect quoting that you fix up in a follow-up patch. It's *two* >> large patches to review instead of just one. I'm stopping the review >> here. > > If we want to support apostrophed paths in tests, I could ask, "if we want to support paths with blanks in tests", so... > I'll flatten 2 & 3 > into a single patch. I thought I'd make the apostrophe part optional > since there seemed to be some resistance to having to bother about > quoting & escaping in tests.. You could also make a patch that reverses the quoting in t9100-* (and probably others), i.e. instead of "... '$foo'..." (which is incorrect) or "... \"$foo\"..." make it '... "$foo" ...' It will be a large patch, too, but the result should be easier to read. -- Hannes