On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:14:32 -0700
Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Rob Hoelz <r...@hoelz.ro> writes:
> > Hi everyone! I found a bug in Git today and wrote up a fix; I did
> > my best to conform to the rules layed out in
> > Documentation/SubmittingPatches, but please let me know if I need
> > to change anything to get my work merged. =) I have CC'ed Josh
> > Triplet, as he was the last one to touch the line I modified. I
> > hope my commit messages explain the problem I encountered well
> > enough; if not, I can always go back and amend them.
> > Patches follow.
> > -Rob
> Please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches and follow it. The
> above is most likely to be the cover letter of a two-patch series
> (meaning you will be sending three pieces of e-mail messages), or
> perhaps out of band comment below the three-dash line of a single
> patch (you will send only one piece of e-mail message).
> See recent patches on the list from list regulars for good examples,
> > From 5007b11e86c0835807632cb41e6cfa75ce9a1aa1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> > 2001 From: Rob Hoelz <r...@hoelz.ro>
> > Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 21:49:20 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Add test for pushInsteadOf + pushurl
> > git push currently doesn't consider pushInsteadOf when
> > using pushurl; this test tests that.
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Hoelz <r...@hoelz.ro>
> > ---
> > t/t5500-push-pushurl.sh | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 t/t5500-push-pushurl.sh
> The number 5500 is already taken. Please do not add a duplicate.
> I also wonder if we need to waste a new test number for this;
> perhaps adding new tests to 5516 that already tests insteadOf might
> be a better fit, but I didn't carefully read it.
> > diff --git a/t/t5500-push-pushurl.sh b/t/t5500-push-pushurl.sh
> > new file mode 100644
> Test scripts are supposed to be executable.
> > +test_expect_success 'test commit and push' '
> > + test_commit one &&
> > + git push origin master:master
> > +'
> > +
> > +test_expect_success 'check for commits in rw repo' '
> > + cd ../rw/repo &&
> > + git log --pretty=oneline | grep -q .
> > +'
> Are both expected to succeed in patch 1/2 without any code change?
> If you were doing a large code change, it is a good series structure
> to have tests first that are marked as "expect_failure" in an early
> patch, and then in a later patch that changes the code to fix it,
> update the tests that start to pass to "expect_success".
> I personally do not think you need such a two-step approach for
> something small like this; instead you can just have a single patch
> that adds a set of tests that expect success and code change.
Thanks for the feeback; another reply with the new patch follows.
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