Re: [PATCH 3/2] git.c: make sure we do not leak GIT_* to alias scripts

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes: > >> Let's hope there will be no third report about this commit.. > > Hmm, why does this additional test fail only under prove but pass > without it? It passes with prove

Re: [PATCH 3/2] git.c: make sure we do not leak GIT_* to alias scripts

On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:55:20PM +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes: > > > >> Let's hope there will be no third report about this commit.. > > > > Hmm, why does this

Re: [PATCH 3/2] git.c: make sure we do not leak GIT_* to alias scripts

Jeff King writes: > It fails for me when run via "make" (with prove or without) but not as > "./t0001-init.sh". Looks like extra variables from my config.mak leak > through: > > $ make t0001-init.sh GIT_TEST_OPTS="-v -i" > [...] > --- expected2015-12-08

Re: [PATCH 3/2] git.c: make sure we do not leak GIT_* to alias scripts

Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes: > Let's hope there will be no third report about this commit.. Hmm, why does this additional test fail only under prove but pass without it? > diff --git a/t/t0001-init.sh b/t/t0001-init.sh > index f91bbcf..19539fc 100755 > --- a/t/t0001-init.sh

[PATCH 3/2] git.c: make sure we do not leak GIT_* to alias scripts

The unfortunate commit d95138e (setup: set env $GIT_WORK_TREE when work tree is set, like $GIT_DIR - 2015-06-26) exposes another problem, besides git-clone that's described in the previous commit. If GIT_WORK_TREE (or even GIT_DIR) is exported to an alias script, it may mislead git commands in the