Hi Junio,

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> 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?

I think your "let's take a step back" was spot on: when being passed a
path ending in "/." and being told to normalize the relative path "../."
on top, the very special meaning of "." should be taken into


Reply via email to