Eric Sunshine <> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Junio C Hamano <> wrote:
>> SZEDER Gábor <> 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 lesson is that one should not rebase while waiting for a flight
in a hurry X-<.

Will queue the following on top.

Thanks for spotting; really appreciated.

-- >8 --
Subject: t4211: fix incorrect rebase at f8395edc (range-set: satisfy non-empty 
ranges invariant)

Wnen I rewrote "cat b.c | wc -l" into "wc -l <b.c" to squash in a
suggestion on the list to this series, I screwed up subsequent
rebase.  Fix it up.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <>
 t/ | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/t/ b/t/
index 00a850d..7665d67 100755
--- a/t/
+++ b/t/
@@ -68,7 +68,6 @@ test_bad_opts "-L :foo:b.c" "no match"
 # thus to demonstrate this particular bug, the empty -L range must follow a
 # non-empty -L range.
 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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to