Re: [PATCH] t0060: loosen overly strict expectations

On 14/01/16 17:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

Also...

quoted

-#if defined(__MINGW32__)
-	/* the following is clearly wrong ... */
-	{ "C:",              "."      },
-#endif
-
-#if defined(_MSC_VER)
-	{ "C:",              "C:."    },
-#endif
-
-#endif
+	{ "C:",              "C:.", "." },
 #endif

"C:" is still allowed to go to "."; is it still "clearly wrong",
or do we have a reason why we think it is not wrong at all?

I think the comment was written by Ramsay and also suspect that you
did not specifically agree or disagree with that particular
decision, so I'd understand if you do not have a strong opinion
either way, but I'd like to hear from Ramsay.  Perhaps earlier we
thought it was clearly wrong but we no longer do?

Yes, that comment was mine. The result is "clearly wrong" if you
follow the POSIX rules [1], but that may not translate exactly to
a dos like path. ;-)

I think the question is: does it make a difference if you call
chdir() on the result? Which brings up something which I have
been ignoring. Correct me if I'm wrong (quite possible), but
_each_ drive has a current working directory associated with
it in win32, so it's a bit difficult to use drive designators
with a relative path (eg. C:usr/lib).

Note: The test data in the test-libgen.c file was using Linux
as the 'benchmark' for the POSIX paths and IIRC MinGW-32 for
the dos paths. (Note that I said 'benchmark' _not_ 'correct'). :-P

ATB,
Ramsay Jones

[1] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/dirname.html