On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Jonathan Tan <jonathanta...@google.com> >> wrote: >> ... >>> # Tweak the push output to make the push option outside the cert >>> # different, then replay it on a fresh dst, checking that ff is not >>> # deleted. >>> - sed -i "s/\\([^ ]\\)bar/\\1baz/" push && >>> + perl -pe "s/([^ ])bar/\\1baz/" push >push.tweak && >>> prepare_dst && >>> git -C dst config receive.certnonceseed sekrit && >>> git -C dst config receive.advertisepushoptions 1 && >>> - git receive-pack dst <push >out && >>> + git receive-pack dst <push.tweak >out && >> >> The test should have a PERL prerequisite now, that's missing. > > For a single-liner like this, our stance has always been that t/ > scripts can assume _some_ version of Perl interpreter available for > use, cf. t/README where it lists prerequisites and explains them: > > - PERL > > Git wasn't compiled with NO_PERL=YesPlease. > > Even without the PERL prerequisite, tests can assume there is a > usable perl interpreter at $PERL_PATH, though it need not be > particularly modern. > > So unless "receive-pack" that is being tested here requires Perl at > runtime, we do not want PERL prerequisite for this test.
Oops, sorry about that. >> Also using \1 will likely be deprecated in future versions of perl at >> some point: >> >> $ echo hifoo | perl -wpe "s/([^ ])bar/\\1baz/" >> \1 better written as $1 at -e line 1. >> hifoo > > Very good advice from a Perl expert; thanks. No problem. Hopefully my noisy advice will at least lead to fixing a bug in perl if there is one :)
