Remi Galan Alfonso <remi.galan-alfo...@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr>
writes:

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
>> Hi RĂ©mi,
>> 
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2016, Remi Galan Alfonso wrote:
>> 
>> > Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes:
>> > > diff --git a/t/t1350-config-hooks-path.sh b/t/t1350-config-hooks-path.sh
>> > > index 5e3fb3a..f1f9aee 100755
>> > > --- a/t/t1350-config-hooks-path.sh
>> > > +++ b/t/t1350-config-hooks-path.sh
>> > > @@ -34,4 +34,10 @@ test_expect_success 'Check that various forms of 
>> > > specifying core.hooksPath work'
>> > >          test_cmp expect actual
>> > >  '
>> > >  
>> > > +test_expect_success 'git rev-parse --git-path hooks' '
>> > > +        git config core.hooksPath .git/custom-hooks &&
>> >
>> > Any reason to not use 'test_config' here?
>> 
>> Yes: consistency. The rest of the script uses `git config`, not
>> `test_config`.
>
> Fine by me, then. Sorry for the noise.

No, thanks for reviewing.  I'll take Dscho's patch as-is but once it
hits 'next', it probably is a good idea to do a separate clean-up
patch on top to use test_config where necessary.

Having said that, this entire script is about constantly changing
the value of that single configuration variable and see how the code
performs, so any new test added after existing ones is expected to
ignore left-over values in the variable and set it to a value of its
own liking.  So I suspect there is no existing "git config" call in
this script, with or without Dscho's patch, that would benefit from
getting converted to test_config.


--
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

Reply via email to