| Message ID | pull.792.git.1605710947.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | t2106 vs. the default branch name | expand |
"Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > Yet another thing I noticed while working on > https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/762. > > Johannes Schindelin (3): > t2106: adjust style to the current conventions > t2106: make test independent of the current main branch name > t2106: ensure that the checkout fails for the expected reason > > t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh | 31 +++++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) This seems to partly replicate and partly deprecate what is in that final stretch 27-or-28 patch series does to the same test script. Are we taking this and then removing a patch or two from that larger series?
Hi Junio, On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Johannes Schindelin via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> > writes: > > > Yet another thing I noticed while working on > > https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/762. > > > > Johannes Schindelin (3): > > t2106: adjust style to the current conventions > > t2106: make test independent of the current main branch name > > t2106: ensure that the checkout fails for the expected reason > > > > t/t2106-update-index-assume-unchanged.sh | 31 +++++++++++++----------- > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > This seems to partly replicate and partly deprecate what is in that > final stretch 27-or-28 patch series does to the same test script. > Are we taking this and then removing a patch or two from that larger > series? Sorry, I meant to explain my current thinking: for v3, I want to accommodate your wish (to mark every test script with the hard-coded default branch name individually, and only those test scripts that actually need to hard-code it). It is not only to fulfill your wish, I got genuinely curious what would actually be needed to make that happen. The four test scripts for which I sent patch series in the past hours to remove the use of the name `master` won't be touched by v3 of this here patch series at all (because it won't be necessary anymore). Ciao, Dscho
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: > The four test scripts for which I sent patch series in the past hours to > remove the use of the name `master` won't be touched by v3 of this here > patch series at all (because it won't be necessary anymore). Ah, OK. I somehow had an impression that the big series was more or less done but rethinking the structure and ejecting these changes to tests that do not care what name the "init" uses by default from the series makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
Hi Junio, On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: > > > > The four test scripts for which I sent patch series in the past hours to > > remove the use of the name `master` won't be touched by v3 of this here > > patch series at all (because it won't be necessary anymore). > > Ah, OK. I somehow had an impression that the big series was more or > less done Me, too. And if I had listened to certain people who claim that lazy programmers are the best programmers, I would have stopped there, too. > but rethinking the structure and ejecting these changes to tests that do > not care what name the "init" uses by default from the series makes a > lot of sense. Yep. Ciao, Dscho