Hello Johannes,

W dniu 01.09.2016 o 10:01, Johannes Schindelin pisze:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote:
>> W dniu 31.08.2016 o 20:36, Johannes Schindelin pisze:
>>
>> I wonder: would 'git cherry-pick --continue' be able to finish
>> 'git revert', and vice versa, then?  Or 'git sequencer --continue'?
> 
> I just tested this, via
> 
>       diff --git a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
>       b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
>       index 96c7640..085d8bc 100755
>       --- a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
>       +++ b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh
>       @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ test_expect_success 'cherry-pick
>       mid-cherry-pick-sequence' '
>               git checkout HEAD foo &&
>               git cherry-pick base &&
>               git cherry-pick picked &&
>       -       git cherry-pick --continue &&
>       +       git revert --continue &&
>               git diff --exit-code anotherpick
> 
> (Danger! Whitespace corrupted!!!)
> 
> It appears that this passes now.

I'm now not sure if it is such a great idea.  As was said somewhere else
in this thread, different sequencer-based commands sports different
options, and you can add options to the "git <command> --continue".
For example you can say "git cherry-pick --continue -x", but you
cannot say "git revert --continue -x", as '-x' is a cherry-pick only
option.  Or you can, theoretically, use "git am --continue --no-3way".

One option is to temporarily relax the test (test_expect_failure),
then fix it at the end.


BTW. how git-am uses sequencer?  I have seen "revert" etc., and "pick"
etc., but no git-am related constants or strings...

> Probably `git sequencer --continue` would work, too, if there was a `git
> sequencer`. :0)

Right.

> 
>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote: 
>>>> W dniu 29.08.2016 o 10:04, Johannes Schindelin pisze:
>>  
>>>>> 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.
> 
> Actually, you know, I completely missed the fact that there was a
> "malformed instruction sheet 3". I renumbered it.

Ooops.  I have missed it too, having looked only at the test after the
one removed (which is not about malformed instruction sheet).

Best,
-- 
Jakub Narębski

Reply via email to