Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] exec_cmd: RUNTIME_PREFIX on some POSIX systems

Hi Junio,

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Dan Jacques <dnj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> In Git for Windows, we have an almost identical patch:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/commit/bdd739bb2b0b
> >>
> >> We just guard the call to system_path() behind a test whether podir is
> >> already absolute, but these days, system_path() does that itself.
> >>
> >> I am too little of a Perl expert to be helpful with the other patches, but
> >> I would gladly runa build & test on Windows if you direct me to an
> >> easily-pullable branch.
> >
> > Oh interesting - I've only peripherally looked at Git-for-Windows code,
> > since Chromium uses its packages verbatim (thanks, BTW!). I think you're
> > correct though - this patch set seems to be doing the same thing.
> >
> > I've been force-pushing my changes to the "runtime-prefix" branch of my Git
> > fork for travis.ci testing. The latest commit on that branch adds a
> > "config.mak" for testing, so one commit from the branch head will contain
> > the sum set of this patch series applied at (or near) Git's master branch:
> >
> > https://github.com/danjacques/git/tree/runtime-prefix~1
> >
> > Let me know if this is what you are looking for, and if I can offer any
> > help with Windows testing. Thanks!
> FWIW, I plan to include this somewhere on 'pu' for today's
> integration cycle, so dj/runtime-prefix topic branch would also be
> what can easily be grabbed.

Thanks for the offer.

Having said that, I prefer to work with Dan's branch directly, as that
would be the branch that would need changes in case I need to patch
anything. It's better to save the time on the roundtrip through your
branch (that may display other side effects, too, as you almost certainly
chose a different base commit than Dan did).

Also, I could easily offer the changes in a PR which is *a lot* more
convenient on my side.