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=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_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 76B7A1F404 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:05:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752530AbeC0QFp (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:05:45 -0400 Received: from mail-ot0-f172.google.com ([74.125.82.172]:45413 "EHLO mail-ot0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752356AbeC0QFo (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 12:05:44 -0400 Received: by mail-ot0-f172.google.com with SMTP id h26-v6so17602217otj.12 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CmfYsAWB0GbR+hv1NzevtacCfJZ4Qis3mrkBc62Iq2E=; b=oj1IwoJkLd8kmPtZFi183BPhREgEZEYvSCLXBkhnzRxSSiyFw8F7q0erUHigUEzwmr q8Bo0JTXDXkW2N3MC9fCgW640ss3eot6w8fMK0j17awHwpQsthclKsUX+Jc2cfTWBRGF /nhoqIIY2xrkt+Apo+tqVcn79yb6POna63Pjtvs/W6Dn7ow/bCBjgsh1pfTbPZE+HJRh 8yRJttp8V3r6rPdGH3Ipe/3bXBpyqZYWyvyl/tO8zZh/9s8ApvqkcPTNebyeufCjOawN vkLZImETA89Yrr7MbxPxm5w29xCOkQu50wNg7bnm7m3cuId3ihW0OoQ/4tJJoFHqt2eo ItCg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CmfYsAWB0GbR+hv1NzevtacCfJZ4Qis3mrkBc62Iq2E=; b=G4dzgujH1b7ITIhbhTKDbiyKjLhieorjEgMBiF9yjcreCTlYnopXXGnfNENNML21IF 74NtUglqTmoB4BQF/2B3YdzelGGfI/ZObrJCw204EXIuOWFzIgcDBqTw0tlb/3o1CX0q jMZk0s9yGXTFiEV9kKjEKRiEzz25WusuCk6akXrUvHW9dBx5u28+OAocnNssOp6VCdXe CVXEGk6/nppI4kjOSApU87Dzw6NOb22fBTY0XYOL9EQncOXFv/cvYaQhv21hFYTA5xO6 GzvTaZ31dvVUAMW5qrM/+zmKhtKmFAix4tzpbePIqNrRUu/dboEoyGnU63ore2kSfVBF GD4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FKKS7WdTg2tTZQNyoQaDaPhBququAXKHGBVdzhcw8XClFqETh/ 2tgtbHh1zG0v/iR5dG9S+gXCM5HcxO42tah57sg+pw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvjOlA09oUU3ppRe7K2+CuiWm/cwVQovjbFsYivwrPojzV4c9tNKwXHHckf9XdWhmQjWYaXKsfzKtsB/uTU2dg= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:2ef0:: with SMTP id w103-v6mr21684541ota.400.1522166743204; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:05:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180325205120.17730-1-dnj@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Daniel Jacques Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 16:05:32 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Add Windows support to the new RUNTIME_PREFIX design To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:54 AM Johannes Schindelin < Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote: > Yes, I performed manual testing. Alright! Just manually tested your "git" scenario myself on the Linux build and all seems to be in order. > I guess we should add a test where we copy the `git` executable into a > subdirectory with the name "git" and call `git/git --exec-path` and verify > that its output matches our expectation? I'm actually a little fuzzy on the testing model here. As things are, this test will only work if Git is relocatable; however, the test suite doesn't seem to be equipped to build multiple versions of Git for different tests. From this I conclude that the right approach would be to make a test that runs conditional on RUNTIME_PREFIX being set, but I'm not familiar enough with the testing framework to be confident that this is correct, or really how to go about writing such a test. A simple grep suggests that the current test suite doesn't seem to have any RUNTIME_PREFIX-specific tests. When I've been running the test suites, I've been doing it with a "config.mak" file that explicitly enables RUNTIME_PREFIX to get the runtime prefix code tested against the standard Git testing suites. From a Git maintainer's perspective, would such a test be a prerequisite for landing this patch series, or is this a good candidate for follow-up work to improve our testing coverage? -Dan