Re: [PATCH 5/5] tests: explicitly use `git.exe` on Windows

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

The latter half of this change is a good one.  Given what the
proposed log message of this patch says

    Note also: the many, many calls to `git this` and `git that` are
    unaffected, as the regular PATH search will find the `.exe` files on
    Windows (and not be confused by a directory of the name `git` that is
    in one of the directories listed in the `PATH` variable), while
    `/path/to/git` would not, per se, know that it is looking for an
    executable and happily prefer such a directory.

which I read as "path-prefixed invocation, i.e. some/path/to/git, is
bad, it must be spelled some/path/to/git.exe", I am surprised that
tests ever worked on Windows without these five patches, as this
line used to read like this:

	"$GIT_BUILD_DIR/git" >/dev/null
	if test $? != 1
	then
		...

Wouldn't "$GIT_BUILD_DIR/git" have failed (and "executable not
found" hopefully won't produce exit code 1) and stopped the test
suite from running even after you built git and not under the
test-installed-git mode?

"$GIT_BUILD_DIR/git" did not fail until I regularly built with Visual
Studio (and my Visual Studio project generator generates a directory named
"git" to live alongside "git.exe").

And when it failed, I patched Git for Windows. Fast-forward, years later I
managed to contribute the patch we are discussing right now ;-)

OK, I still cannot read it out of what you wrote in the proposed log
message without aid, but in essense the crux of the problem is that
invoking "some/path/to/git" finds "some/path/to/git.exe" only when
there is no "some/path/to/git" directory at the same time, and if
that directory exists, tries and fails to execute that directory,
and the change in this patch protects us from that problem.

Did I get it right?  I'd really prefer to see it more clearly
written in the log message so the next person who reads "git log"
do not have to ask the same question to you.

Assuming that I read it correctly, I think this patch as a whole
makes tons of sense as a change to make the invocation more robust.

Thanks.