On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> SZEDER Gábor <sze...@ira.uka.de> writes:
>> You could avoid the 'cat' here and patch in 4/5 by doing $(wc -l <b.c).
> Correct.

Thanks, I like that better.

Unfortunately, what actually got queued on 'next', after applying this
fix-up and re-ordering the patch series, is slightly bogus.  The diff
for f8395edc (range-set: satisfy non-empty ranges invariant) looks
like this:

@@ -67,7 +67,8 @@ test_bad_opts "-L :foo:b.c" "no match"
 # There is a separate bug when an empty -L range is the first -L encountered,
 # thus to demonstrate this particular bug, the empty -L range must follow a
 # non-empty -L range.
-test_expect_failure '-L {empty-range} (any -L)' '
+test_expect_success '-L {empty-range} (any -L)' '
+ n=$(expr $(cat b.c | wc -l) + 1) &&
  n=$(expr $(wc -l <b.c) + 1) &&
  git log -L1,1:b.c -L$n:b.c

which incorrectly adds back the $(cat b.c | wc -l) line just above the
fixed $(wc -l <b.c) line.
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