On 7/28/2014 4:52 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Tanay Abhra <tanay...@gmail.com> writes:
>> +test_expect_success 'check line errors for malformed values' '
>> + mv .git/config .git/config.old &&
>> + test_when_finished "mv .git/config.old .git/config" &&
>> + cat >.git/config <<-\EOF &&
>> + [alias]
>> + br
>> + EOF
>> + test_expect_code 128 git br 2>result &&
>> + grep "fatal: bad config file line 2 in .git/config" result
> This is PATCH 4, and it tests a bug fixed in PATCH 1. It would have
> eased review to group both patches, either
> PATCH 1: introduce test_expect_failure test to demonstrate the failure
Didn't Junio comment that he wouldn't recommend inserting a test_expect_failure
for new tests and then flipping them after in the series.
> PATCH 2: fix the bug and change test_expect_failure to test_expect_success
> Or putting both in the same patch.
Much better, thanks for the advice.
> I think the series is OK like this, my comment is just to be read as
> "next time, here's how to do better".
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