On 19.03.2014, at 11:53, Max Horn <m...@quendi.de> wrote:

> On 17.03.2014, at 18:01, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Torsten Bögershausen <tbo...@web.de> writes:
>>> On 2014-03-14 23.09, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>> * ap/remote-hg-skip-null-bookmarks (2014-01-02) 1 commit
>>>> - remote-hg: do not fail on invalid bookmarks
>>>> Reported to break tests ($gmane/240005)
>>>> Expecting a reroll.
>>> I wonder what should happen here.
>>> The change breaks all the tests in test-hg-hg-git.sh
>>> (And the breakage may prevent us from detecting other breakages)
>>> The ideal situation would be to have an extra test case for the problem
>>> which we try to fix with this patch.


> The (or at least "a") root cause has actually been discovered. Would a patch 
> that adds an xfail test case for it be acceptable?
> As to the why the proposed patch causes test failures: I think this is due to 
> the fact that remote-hg inserts a fake "master" branch (resp. "bookmark" in 
> the hg terminology). Now, in those test cases, a hg repository gets created 
> that actually contains a "null" bookmark named "master". When the proposed 
> fix for the problem is added, this bookmarks gets ignored. But at that point, 
> remote-hg already determined that there is a hg bookmark named "master", and 
> adjusts how it works accordingly -- when we then remove that bookmarks, 
> things go awry.
> But I might be wrong here, and in any case, did not yet have time to come up 
> with a proper fix.

Actually, scratch that, I just came up with a fix, and also tests. Will submit 

I'd still like to know whether it is OK to submit further patches with 
(x?)failing test cases?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to