Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
I'm not all that happy with the advice, though. It's pretty technical
and specific. I'm not sure whether it would be helpful to most users or
not.
Yeah, Michael's rewording makes it fuzzier by saying "exists, unable to
execute, maybe git-%s is broken?".
I notice that we do not give the path to the file that implements the
command. Perhaps we should walk the $PATH after we see this failure to
pinpoint which one is to be inspected (I vaguely recall a weatherbaloon
patch to a similar effect)?
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:24:57AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I'm not all that happy with the advice, though. It's pretty technical
and specific. I'm not sure whether it would be helpful to most users or
not.
Yeah, Michael's rewording makes it fuzzier by saying "exists, unable to
execute, maybe git-%s is broken?".
Yeah, I like his better.
I notice that we do not give the path to the file that implements the
command. Perhaps we should walk the $PATH after we see this failure to
pinpoint which one is to be inspected (I vaguely recall a weatherbaloon
patch to a similar effect)?
That would be better still. But I don't know how much effort this is
really worth. It is about catching one specific uncommon
misconfiguration. If it were part of a more general exec wrapper that
gave better output (which I think is the weatherballoon you mean, that
you did a month or three ago), I think it might be more worthwhile.
But even then, I seem to remember the discussion fizzling out to "is
this really that common a problem?"
So I'm happy with just taking Michael's patch.
-Peff