Re: cvs import and internal plumbing commands
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:47:05
Antony Stubbs [off-list ref] writes:
On 21/07/2009, at 3:34 AM, Jeff King wrote: ...quoted
But I guess the plan was softened, and we have no deprecation plan for dashed forms in exec-path. So maybe my thinking was outdated.quoted
So the preferred fix might be just the matter of adding one line $ENV{'PATH'} = `git --exec-path`. ":$ENV{'PATH'}"; at the beginning of the script.I can see that for a totally third-party script which wanted to use git plumbing. But why do that for a git-* script? The "git" wrapper sets up the environment like that already. -Peff
[note: do not top post]
But regardless, surely calling straight into git is simpler/nicer and more likely to just work (as on OSX)? From the 1.6.0 release notes (http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/RelNotes-1.6.0.txt ): """With the default Makefile settings, most of the programs are now installed outside your $PATH, except for "git", "gitk" and some server side programs that need to be accessible for technical reasons. Invoking a git subcommand as "git-xyzzy" from the command line has been deprecated since early 2006 (and officially announced in 1.5.4 release notes); use of them from your scripts after adding output from "git --exec-path" to the $PATH is still supported in this release, but users are again strongly encouraged to adjust their scripts to use "git xyzzy" form, as we will stop installing "git-xyzzy" hardlinks for built-in commands in later releases. """
In case you are too new to the git land, I'd point out that "... as we will stop installing" part was rescinded after a big fiasco that immediately followed 1.6.0 release.
note the "but users are again strongly encouraged to adjust their scripts to use "git xyzzy" form". Why not just apply the patch and be done with it?
Note that my suggestion on $PATH=$(git --exec-path):$PATH was a response to Jeff's message, which was the same message your patch was response to. In other words, our messages crossed, and I do not have an issue with fixing this either way. If your patch fixes the issue correctly that would be great. Has anybody reviewed the submitted patch? I do not use cvsimport these days anymore for anything real, so the only assurance I have on your patch so far are my eyeballs and whatever tests done in test scripts in the t/ directory. Independent "Yeah, it looks good and it works for me" would make me feel a bit safer.