Message ID | cover.1590019226.git.liu.denton@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | t: replace incorrect test_must_fail usage (part 5) | expand |
Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes: > Hi all, > > This is mostly a resend of what's currently queued in > "dl/test-must-fail-fixes-5" except with a tiny bit of cleanup on the tip > patch. I'd appreciate a review on this series so that we can finally get > rid of that "Needs review" on the What's Cooking messages ;) Thanks. The OVERWRITING_FAIL one was the only one I was unhappy about, so it would be good to have more eyeballs on it---perhaps other people find the approach acceptable, or can suggest more readable and understandable approach.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 09:47:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > This is mostly a resend of what's currently queued in > > "dl/test-must-fail-fixes-5" except with a tiny bit of cleanup on the tip > > patch. I'd appreciate a review on this series so that we can finally get > > rid of that "Needs review" on the What's Cooking messages ;) > > Thanks. > > The OVERWRITING_FAIL one was the only one I was unhappy about, so it > would be good to have more eyeballs on it---perhaps other people > find the approach acceptable, or can suggest more readable and > understandable approach. FWIW, I don't really like it either. :) I gave my best shot at an alternative in reply to that patch. -Peff