Johannes Schindelin <> writes:

>> I'll mark it as "wait for follow-up fix" in whats-cooking.txt (on
>> 'todo' branch) to remind myself not to merge it yet.
> May I request your guidance as to your preference how to proceed?
> ...

I guess I didn't see this before I sent my response to the review
thread, which was in my pile of "these need more thought than others
before responding" topics.  

> Here are the options I see:
> A) remove the tests in question
> B) mark them as !MINGW instead
> C) change just those two tests from using `$PWD` (pseudo-Unix path) to
>   `$(pwd)` (native path)
> I would like to hear your feedback about your preference, but not without
> priming you a little bit by detailing my current opinion on the matter:
> While I think B) would be the easiest to read, C) would document the
> expected behavior better. A) would feel to me like shrugging, i.e. the
> lazy, wrong thing to do.
> What do you think?

As to my preference on tests, I guess what I suggested was a cross
between your B and C below, and I can go with either one as an
abbreviated version of my preference ;-) 

I am still wondering if the test is expecting the right behaviour,
though.  If some codepaths rely on a question "please resolve '../.'
relative to 'path/to/dir/.'" being answered as "that's path/to/dir
itself", it smells to me that the downstream of the dataflow that
expects such an answer, as well as the machinery that produces such
an answer, are acting as two wrongs that happen to cancel each
other.  Am I grossly misunderstanding what that test is doing?

Reply via email to