Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] t7063: drop non-POSIX argument "-ls" from find(1)

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

Hi Junio,

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

diff --git a/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh

b/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
index 190ae149cf3c..ab7e8b5fea01 100755

--- a/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh
+++ b/t/t7063-status-untracked-cache.sh

@@ -18,7 +18,12 @@ GIT_FORCE_UNTRACKED_CACHE=true
 export GIT_FORCE_UNTRACKED_CACHE

 sync_mtime () {
-       find . -type d -ls >/dev/null
+       if test_have_prereq BUSYBOX
+       then
+               find . -type d -print0 | xargs -0r ls -ld >/dev/null
+       else
+               find . -type d -ls >/dev/null
+       fi

Given that this is only to work around the lazy mtime sync found on
BSDs, if we were to have any if/then/else, shouldn't we be rather
doing

	if test_have_prereq NEEDS_SYNC_MTIME_BECAUSE_WE_ARE_ON_BSD
	then
		find . -type d -ls >/dev/null
	fi

to make it a no-op for most everybody (including Windows)?

I like that approach.

I actually think I was being half stupid --- what are we going to
tell those who want a stripped down system with busybox based on
BSD?  I think the condition for "if" is OK (as long as we have a
real prereq suitable for the approach), but the actual "let's make
sure the inodes are stat(2)ed" should avoid relying on "find -ls".

If we can assume that a typical busybox build offers find with -print0
and xargs with -0, I think the version you sent is probably the best
(with or without "do so only on BSD" I suggested) approach.

Thanks.