Ramsay Jones [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
index f50f834..9dcf3c1 100644
--- a/t/test-lib.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib.sh
@@ -202,6 +202,15 @@ do
esac
done
+if test -z "$GIT_TEST_PRINT"
+then
+ GIT_TEST_PRINT="printf %s"
+fi
+if test -z "$GIT_TEST_PRINT_LN"
+then
+ GIT_TEST_PRINT_LN="printf %s\n"
+fi
+
if test -n "$color"
then
say_color () {@@ -221,7 +230,7 @@ then
test -n "$quiet" && return;;
esac
shift
- printf "%s" "$*"
+ $GIT_TEST_PRINT "$*"
tput sgr0
echo
)
@@ -230,7 +239,7 @@ else
say_color() {
test -z "$1" && test -n "$quiet" && return
shift
- printf "%s\n" "$*"
+ $GIT_TEST_PRINT_LN "$*"
}
fi
As you said, this is ugly and also unwieldy in that I do not see an
easy way for a platform/builder to define something that needs to
pass a parameter with $IFS in it in these two variables.
Why does your printf die in the first place???
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ramsay Jones [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
diff --git a/t/test-lib.sh b/t/test-lib.sh
index f50f834..9dcf3c1 100644
--- a/t/test-lib.sh
+++ b/t/test-lib.sh
@@ -202,6 +202,15 @@ do
esac
done
+if test -z "$GIT_TEST_PRINT"
+then
+ GIT_TEST_PRINT="printf %s"
+fi
+if test -z "$GIT_TEST_PRINT_LN"
+then
+ GIT_TEST_PRINT_LN="printf %s\n"
+fi
+
if test -n "$color"
then
say_color () {@@ -221,7 +230,7 @@ then
test -n "$quiet" && return;;
esac
shift
- printf "%s" "$*"
+ $GIT_TEST_PRINT "$*"
tput sgr0
echo
)
@@ -230,7 +239,7 @@ else
say_color() {
test -z "$1" && test -n "$quiet" && return
shift
- printf "%s\n" "$*"
+ $GIT_TEST_PRINT_LN "$*"
}
fi
As you said, this is ugly and also unwieldy in that I do not see an
easy way for a platform/builder to define something that needs to
pass a parameter with $IFS in it in these two variables.
Yes, I spent 10 minutes trying to decide if I should send this patch
at all ... (ie how much public humiliation could I take :-D )
Why does your printf die in the first place???
I really don't know. I'm not sure I will ever know. A couple of years
ago, when I was trying to debug the (harmless) "--color" spew, I found
(via google, etc) numerous accounts of similar problems, with various
workarounds for specific problems. One such account claimed that the
cause of the problem was an official "fix" from Microsoft (as part of
a service pack) which worked just fine on Windows Vista (and later) but
had this known side-effect on XP. Since it fixed the problem it was
intended to fix, even on XP, and the unfortunate "side-effect" on XP
should be quite rare, they decided to apply it on XP anyway. :(
Hmm, on reflection, it would probably be best if you just drop this patch.
I can keep it locally and apply it on top of any branch I want to test.
(Actually, it would be easier to simply revert commit 7bc0911d.)
Sorry for wasting your time.
ATB,
Ramsay Jones