car...@cmartin.tk (Carlos Martín Nieto) writes:
> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
>> Carlos Martín Nieto <c...@elego.de> writes:
>>> As a result of making --unset-upstream fail if the given branch
>>> doesn't exist, I discovered a copy-paste error in on the the tests in
>>> the patch after it, so I'm resending the whole thing.
>>> The changes from the last reroll are the tightening of the situations
>>> where git will show an error message (not it's just if the branch is
>>> new and exists as remote-tracking) which I already sent as a reply in
>>> the other thread; and making --unset-upstream error out on bad input,
>>> which I already mentioned above.
>> In addition to "--unset-upstream must fail on i-dont-exist branch"
>> in [2/3], I am wondering if we would want to also make sure the
>> command fails when the upstream information is not set for the
>> branch, i.e. something like the following on top.
>> What do you think?
>> t/t3200-branch.sh | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> diff --git i/t/t3200-branch.sh w/t/t3200-branch.sh
>> index 1018e8b..a0aaedd 100755
>> --- i/t/t3200-branch.sh
>> +++ w/t/t3200-branch.sh
>> @@ -393,7 +393,9 @@ test_expect_success 'test --unset-upstream on HEAD' \
>> git branch --set-upstream-to my14 &&
>> git branch --unset-upstream &&
>> test_must_fail git config branch.master.remote &&
>> - test_must_fail git config branch.master.merge'
>> + test_must_fail git config branch.master.merge &&
>> + test_must_fail git branch --unset-upstream
> Yeah, this looks good, makes sure that it will still behave correctly
> even if the code path for these two situations diverges.
Alright; will squash.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html