Hi all,
Thanks for the fast feedback, I'll answer everyone in a single email
if you don't mind.
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
snip
> I wonder if we can make this so intuitive that it doesn't need
> mentioning in CodingGuidelines. What if the test
Dridi Boukelmoune writes:
> For end users making use of a custom exec path many commands will simply
> fail. Adding git's exec path to the PATH also allows overriding git-sh-*
> scripts, not just adding commands. One can then patch a script without
> tainting their
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> This has been broken for a while, but better late than never to
>> address it.
>
> I am not sure if this is broken in the first place. We do want to
> make sure that the scripted porcelains will source the shell helper
>
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> This has been broken for a while, but better late than never to
> address it.
I am not sure if this is broken in the first place. We do want to
make sure that the scripted porcelains will source the shell helper
library from matching Git release.
Hi,
Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> For end users making use of a custom exec path many commands will simply
> fail. Adding git's exec path to the PATH also allows overriding git-sh-*
> scripts, not just adding commands. One can then patch a script without
> tainting their system installation of git
For end users making use of a custom exec path many commands will simply
fail. Adding git's exec path to the PATH also allows overriding git-sh-*
scripts, not just adding commands. One can then patch a script without
tainting their system installation of git for example.
Signed-off-by: Dridi
6 matches
Mail list logo