Hi Hannes,

On Tue, 6 Nov 2018, Johannes Sixt wrote:

> Am 06.11.18 um 15:53 schrieb Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget:
> > From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de>
> > 
> > On Windows, an absolute POSIX path needs to be turned into a Windows
> > one.
> 
> If I were picky, I would say that in a pure Windows application there cannot
> be POSIX paths to begin with.
> 
> Even if a path looks like a POSIX paths, i.e. it starts with a directory
> separator, but not with drive-letter-colon, it still has a particular meaning,
> namely (as far as I know) that the path is anchored at the root of the drive
> of the current working directory.
> 
> If a user specifies such a path on Windows, and it must undergo
> expand_user_path(), then that is a user error, or the user knows what they are
> doing.
> 
> I think it is wrong to interpret such a path as relative to some random other
> directory, like this patch seems to do.

Okay, now we know everything you find wrong with the current patch. Do you
have any suggestion how to make it right? I.e. what would you suggest as a
way to specify in a gitconfig in a portable Git where the certificate
bundle is?

Thanks,
Dscho

> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de>
> > ---
> >   path.c | 5 +++++
> >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/path.c b/path.c
> > index 34f0f98349..a72abf0e1f 100644
> > --- a/path.c
> > +++ b/path.c
> > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> >   #include "path.h"
> >   #include "packfile.h"
> >   #include "object-store.h"
> > +#include "exec-cmd.h"
> >   
> >   static int get_st_mode_bits(const char *path, int *mode)
> >   {
> > @@ -709,6 +710,10 @@ char *expand_user_path(const char *path, int real_home)
> >   
> >    if (path == NULL)
> >             goto return_null;
> > +#ifdef __MINGW32__
> > +   if (path[0] == '/')
> > +           return system_path(path + 1);
> > +#endif
> >    if (path[0] == '~') {
> >     const char *first_slash = strchrnul(path, '/');
> >     const char *username = path + 1;
> > 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to