Re: [PATCH v3] To make GIT-VERSION-FILE, search for git more widely

Nanako Shiraishi [off-list ref] writes:

Quoting Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

quoted

I actually like the rationale you mentioned in the thread (perhaps in the
original proposed commit message as well) that we should ask the freshly
built git to describe the version if available, falling back to whichever
git of random vintage found on the original $PATH.

If it weren't for $X [*1*], my preference would have been (as I said in
the discussion) to run ./git if available locally.

But I think your "deal with details like $X to figure out the name of the
freshly built git binary is in the Makefile, and pass it via GIT variable
to GIT-VERSION-GEN" is a sensible approach.  I do not remember if your
patch gave precedence to an installed git on the original $PATH or a
freshly built one, though---the precedent probably does not matter in
practice, and favoring the one found on $PATH over freshly built one does
have an advantage if we were to support cross compilation (I have a
suspicion that the current setup does not).

Thanks.

Junio, I think you forgot to take a follow-up action on this thread after sending this message.  The patch favors the git program in the current directory.

Indeed, I did, and I think I am Ok with the patch.  Thanks for a
reminder.

I thought there was an "simplicity" issue raised by J6t that was not
addressed, but after re-reading the thread I do not think it applies
(J6t?)

Do you want to ask Matthias to resend the patch with an updated log message?

The proposed commit log message indeed does look somewhat incompatible
with the normal style of our log messages, but I think I can rewrite it.

P.S. a happy birthday ;-)

Heh, depending on where you are, you are a day or so late, but thanks
anyway.

-- 
Nanako Shiraishi
http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/