Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] Make running git under other debugger-like programs easy

Hi Dscho,

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 3:38 AM, Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, Elijah Newren wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Johannes Schindelin
>> <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:


>> That all looks great to me.  But at this point, it seems like it's a
>> full rewrite and your patch to submit (which I'd be happy to endorse
>> in lieu of my own)...
> :-)
>> or do you want me to submit with you as author and me as committer?
> That would be my preference. I have not even tested what I wrote above...

Sure, will do.

>> Also, a side question: if we go this route, do we want to rename
>> GIT_TEST_GDB to reflect its expanded usage?
>> > Then your magic "GIT_WRAPPER" invocation would become a bit more explicit:
>> >
>> >     debug --debugger=nemiver git $ARGS
>> >     debug -d "valgrind --tool=memcheck --track-origins=yes" git $ARGS
>> No, for most (60-80%?) of my invocations, I wouldn't be able to use
>> the debug function; only a minority of my uses are from within the
>> testsuite.  The rest are from the command line (I have
>> git/bin-wrappers/ in my $PATH),
> Oy vey. bin-wrappers in your PATH? That's even worse than what I did in
> the first two years of developing Git: I always ran `git` in-place.
> However, I was bitten by a couple of bugs introduced while developing that
> made it hard to recover (if I don't have a functional Git, I cannot use it
> to go back to a working version, can I?). How do *you* deal with these
> things?

I also have an older system git in /usr/bin; if things go sideways, I
just explicitly use '/usr/bin/git' instead of 'git'.

>> > (In any case, "GIT_WRAPPER" is probably a name in want of being renamed.)
>> Well, with your suggestion, it'd just be whatever that environment
>> variable is named.  I'm perfectly happy with something other than
>> GIT_WRAPPER (or GIT_TEST_GDB).  I'm not so good at coming up with such
>> myself, but maybe something like GIT_DEBUGGER or GIT_DEBUG_WITH?
> I like both. Pick whatever you like, as long as it starts with `GIT_` and
> is descriptive enough. Even `GIT_LAUNCH_THROUGH` would work, but
> `GIT_DEBUGGER` seems to be the shortest that still makes sense.

Cool, GIT_DEBUGGER sounds good to me, I'll just proceed with it.