From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9E71F463 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 18:32:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730450AbfLPScc (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:32:32 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:54282 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729143AbfLPScb (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:32:31 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4063B95E; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:32:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) 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=7ndqYyd5YZkzfR8ylsI0JOMc1CA=; b=rF1GCk JBw7e6Y7L9Hz6I1z3tTRsUXKL6AoLcSmvyg+oueSGTq5OfhRaUIdJ1kPzAqNW74n DCA4edlEIhr52uLDNRd992F3I8nHNxuXOL0WkwDVnrQKa+ItwpAn88nzVSUU1CoV 20A4HYyYydgg3g2Ty3ebvZf/ukpa9OCVFzlg8= 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=cgNnLNQw6csk3OLq23yCupzo9ZP5Bvdk FeIa1AB0Bll5pZRkSHVSLA/vt0ht7EX7truMIqsiSrgQ6iGI5mM+KTPkHquftEpL uu5PB+L8w3K6xbu/YEPw4XstEEF6RDu0QkvqltKBRcMXXb92GE5X/DSHFxIr102a sMB4T0EJE3I= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C943B95D; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:32:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BF703B95C; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:32:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Ruud van Asseldonk , git@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH] t5150: skip request-pull test if Perl is disabled References: <4f11b5b3-a68e-642a-c5fb-7b5dae698669@veniogames.com> <20191127112150.GA22221@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20191128013111.GA76989@google.com> <20191213074659.GA95694@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:32:26 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20191213074659.GA95694@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 13 Dec 2019 02:46:59 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 69BC292C-2032-11EA-B4B4-C28CBED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 10:19:15PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jonathan Nieder writes: >> >> > Not-Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder >> > >> > --- the patch shouldn't be applied as is. >> > ... >> > Agreed: if we want to follow this approach, we should install stubs in >> > place of those scripts when NO_PERL=YesPlease. Will say more about >> > this in a separate reply. >> >> I am just leaving a note here in the thread to make sure I notice if >> there is any progress/conclusion, until which time I'll keep the >> patch on hold. Thanks. > > Thinking on this more, it might not be a bad idea to take Ruud's initial > patch here. It certainly makes things better for his NO_PERL case now, > and then in the future we can either: > > - stop building request-pull entirely with NO_PERL, but we'd still need > the tests to realize that we shouldn't be testing it > > - change request-pull to not require perl, at which point we'd remove > this restriction Hmph, that is a reasonable stance to take, I would think. Let's move it forward. Thanks.