From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B0A1F404 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:16:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728254AbeINWb0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:31:26 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com ([209.85.221.67]:39136 "EHLO mail-wr1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726891AbeINWbZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2018 18:31:25 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id s14-v6so11348746wrw.6 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:16:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=X23IeeDkr4OR01cJS5fgVPsvQIbjXfOmAlSPhvZj+DQ=; b=Bg6TVSzi67Jlcqn/5E3EIX20Go317MdQpkqUnXrdyzg6m3D2NKUnPWt+q4bOJp+zrS zkq0gxujwr/CyLmBl0Tf2PkhiT3CEUiAYXFZMqGWjjuKscNNv64zxhWrGb8M4c3ArGSV 5l4zU72VZveieiA1UqgPa0muKAjqETvb9CrWyXAQSMyhZuaAp/07C1q9C54IXgpo7iik ULTcQSRUBUppFrP4C8frZ4OCk0guSFCEVIn2FAb+HR0oySE/9FfrGuciSQKIXrOU2Qqq KZ+rz+2Um15iTxSmMMu6bpugPNg5QOzRQrqVsRMVszJyqJ8tbcGPcyvpCsQniKTIhavC 8QiQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=X23IeeDkr4OR01cJS5fgVPsvQIbjXfOmAlSPhvZj+DQ=; b=tFBB7wInHYzdZo0q5LUL/GVLtZSmGiomd54FrY7rqrsfG1wG4jJqCCQfoim1I2x+IC Q9+qsh6nrUhgkEk4f+PQkE/zLWnl0k9EieaJklRNKzvL55PIFbv7B5RVnszVWLMH7wEh Gbk2JzJOyOTaBsdWL0CYmx7QOZ8GpMNmfE7eUyFlczf9Ky0qbK8hpVbWwnt63tRz3qgV LSpopqOZEeEiMiwDXFrbScugOOWuXTYaezZ70POElkuxIszm00q0RT8xk8X9QwyArstB /Cq/hFY9IQ/AnDQhledh3XCaJaFoScx+V8AMOAMQdJ2DH4W63ybfxRXDIv/Oh905SbmC i5hg== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BZZt6IOOafwwanRTw4shFeU9Im3O8e/y0RZifLtZfJOmjqBabE 2uzdFPNBpeHT/C5LUNs/6GA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZQVhWyT23W/3HJoe3G4z5ncXUYgJSPae1Q/4ivAw+EUKxrdfeBLQAqSR+ZlLx41Nc+05/ffw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4152:: with SMTP id c18-v6mr10648424wrq.61.1536945359296; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (168.50.187.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.187.50.168]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c19-v6sm9016849wre.86.2018.09.14.10.15.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:15:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Ben Peart Cc: "git\@vger.kernel.org" , "t.gummerer\@gmail.com" , "avarab\@gmail.com" , Ben Peart Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] fsmonitor: update GIT_TEST_FSMONITOR support References: <20180914143708.63024-1-benpeart@microsoft.com> <20180914143708.63024-3-benpeart@microsoft.com> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:15:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20180914143708.63024-3-benpeart@microsoft.com> (Ben Peart's message of "Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:37:27 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Ben Peart writes: > diff --git a/config.c b/config.c > index 3461993f0a..3555c63f28 100644 > --- a/config.c > +++ b/config.c > @@ -2278,7 +2278,7 @@ int git_config_get_max_percent_split_change(void) > int git_config_get_fsmonitor(void) > { > if (git_config_get_pathname("core.fsmonitor", &core_fsmonitor)) > - core_fsmonitor = getenv("GIT_FSMONITOR_TEST"); > + core_fsmonitor = getenv("GIT_TEST_FSMONITOR"); Sorry for not noticing earlier, but unlike 4/4 that changed getenv(VAR) to git_env_bool(VAR, 0) "while at it", this leaves it to getenv(VAR), meaning "if it is set to any non-empty string, it is true". Is there a reason for this discrepancy? I _think_ the renaming should be done without getting mixed with other changes like the git_env_bool() done in 4/4. The idea to use git_env_bool() in stead of getenv() may be a good one, but then we should consistently do so when appropriate, and that would make a fine theme for another topic.