Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
> write_script is a semantically unambiguous way to specify what we *want*.
> And it would allow us to handle chmod specifically for Windows *in one
> place only*.
Correct. write_script, for the intended target of the helper, is a
way to write a script that can later be invoked by the test with the
name "$1". It is conceivable for write_script on UNIX to be writing
into "$1" while Windows version to be writing into "$1.bat" and the
script, i.e. the user of the write_script helper, to do this
write_script foo <<EOF &&
...
EOF
...
foo
which may result in foo.bat running on Windows without us having to
adjust the test script. So it indeed is a very nice abstraction to
have.
But the way the test uses this exec.sh script is not consistent with
that. exec.sh for this test is merely a data, whose content must
exactly match what later tests expect, i.e. it wants it to begin
with "#!/bin/sh" and its execute bit on, even though the test does
not have no intention to run it as a script.
So I think it was doubly wrong for me to suggest write_script
without realizing that this is _not_ writing a script in the usual
sense for us to write with write_script.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
