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=-4.1 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 6B13720899 for ; Sat, 5 Aug 2017 23:31:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751242AbdHEXbp (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Aug 2017 19:31:45 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:51977 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751214AbdHEXbo (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Aug 2017 19:31:44 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC6509FF80; Sat, 5 Aug 2017 19:31:43 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=4uecgQ3i2t0ugvuB4p7K2ZEovhQ=; b=vm+PWb ez2+ajZecdmSmPs0Jt1kzXQY6MDnTUw7JcjY2SjrV0Uz03g7MwSNZHe9xkd1TDVb seNtJcvwsY0aVuqsUe5huRmfHA8pwoqtDpqEvBU+yPhyV1QM/oQYvIXdtTaVRd1p AhRB9IwcQv562NZkO4xbwgxJ+NOr1dnTRS0bE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=iSSt7yayO7b/ZcC++x9s8DMcko7W87/K XQ4GunaFelzhkxe42LAZ4ps+dU6uzJuC/4/Jo6G+kYiE9QJjIb1lsaHPPLeD8dEL v+bpH9IyxyJjONWcBIalJsipwO7JwYdX3C3P0m4ruFYUHcoUay56ezisWzPKrAn0 odS+0Qx1VCo= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C27FB9FF7F; Sat, 5 Aug 2017 19:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EE699FF7C; Sat, 5 Aug 2017 19:31:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Michael Forney Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Drop some dashes from built-in invocations in scripts References: <20170805064905.5948-1-mforney@mforney.org> Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2017 16:31:41 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Michael Forney's message of "Sat, 5 Aug 2017 15:54:32 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3D2EFA00-7A36-11E7-BD91-FE4B1A68708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Michael Forney writes: > On 8/5/17, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Have you made sure that all of these scripts, before calling >> 'git-foo' in the current code, update their PATH so that these found >> in the bog standard place (i.e. GIT_EXEC_PATH)? >> >> The reason I ask is because we can rest assured these changes will >> be a no-regression improvement if you did so. I do not offhand >> think of a reason why these scripts wouldn't be doing so, but it >> never hurts to make sure. > > I just checked and all the scripts make some other call to a built-in > with `git foo`, so I think it should be safe. As long as they are the same "foo"'s, then the check you did is perfectly fine. The (unlikely I would think) case that can lead to a regression is if these script deliberately used `git-foo` to find them on $PATH, which can be different from 'git foo' that is found by 'git' in its own binary (as all of them are built-ins), and that is why I asked. Thanks.