Hello Johannes,

W dniu 31.08.2016 o 20:36, Johannes Schindelin pisze:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote: 
>> W dniu 29.08.2016 o 10:04, Johannes Schindelin pisze:
> I am of the opinion that overzealous checking of certain implementation
> details is something to be avoided.

I agree.

>>> Therefore let's just get rid of the test that wants to verify that this
>>> limitation is still in place, in preparation for the upcoming work to
>>> teach the sequencer to do rebase -i's work.
>> Is it "upcoming work" as in one of the patches in this series?
>> If so, which patch?
> I left this a little vague, didn't I? ;-)
> The problem is that the `git-rebase-todo` most definitely does *not* want
> to be restricted to a single command.
> So if you must have a patch that disagrees with this overzealous check,
> the "revamp todo parsing" one is probably the first. But it is better to
> think of this at a higher level than just patches: it is wrong to limit
> the todo script to contain only identical commands.

I see.  Right.

I wonder: would 'git cherry-pick --continue' be able to finish
'git revert', and vice versa, then?  Or 'git sequencer --continue'?

>>> diff --git a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh 
>>> b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
>>> index 7b7a89d..6465edf 100755
>>> --- a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
>>> +++ b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
>>> @@ -459,17 +459,6 @@ test_expect_success 'malformed instruction sheet 1' '
>>>     test_expect_code 128 git cherry-pick --continue
>>>  '
>>> -test_expect_success 'malformed instruction sheet 2' '
>> Hmmm... the description is somewhat lacking (especially compared to
>> the rest of test), anyway.
>> BTW. we should probably rename 'malformed instruction sheet 2'
>> to 'malformed instruction sheet' if there are no further such
>> tests after this removal, isn't it?
> No, we cannot rename it after this patch because the patch removes it ;-)
> (It is not a file name but really a label for a test case.)

Ooops.  What I wanted to say that after removing the test case named
'malformed instruction sheet 2' we should also rename *earlier* test
case from 'malformed instruction sheet 1' to 'malformed instruction sheet',
as it is now the only 'malformed instruction sheet *' test case.

Reply via email to