Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> [...]
>> No, I don't think this would be a good direction to go in. This may
>> not be a good idea either, but if you wanted to add a check here, then
>> maybe something like this (totally untested):
>> diff --git a/t/ b/t/
>> index acda33d..53a2422 100644
>> --- a/t/
>> +++ b/t/
>> @@ -354,6 +354,9 @@ test_done () {
>>      case "$test_failure" in
>>      0)
>>              # Maybe print SKIP message
>> +            if test -n "$skip_all" && test $test_count -gt 0; then
>> +                    error "Can't use skip_all after running some tests"
>> +            fi
>>              [ -z "$skip_all" ] || skip_all=" # SKIP $skip_all"
>>              if test $test_external_has_tap -eq 0; then
> I think preventing invalid TAP output like this would be a very good
> thing!  As a start, this patchlet looks good to me, and then I guess
> we'll have to think more about what happens when a person wants to
> skip_all_remaining after a test has already been run.
> Care to format it as a "git am"-able patch, or should I?

Yes, I will happily create a proper (tested) patch and send it to the list.

However, given that we are now in the RC period, I probably won't get to it
immediately; I need to set aside *at least* one full evening to running the
testsuite on cygwin! ;-)

Ramsay Jones

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to