Tanay Abhra <tanay...@gmail.com> writes:
> 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
> for new tests and then flipping them after in the series.
No, he even said it was good practice:
his point was to avoid breaking something and repairing in another patch
(which your initial series was doing because the test patch was coming
between "rewrite git_config() to use the config-set API" and "add line
number and file name info to `config_set`").
The situation is different when you have a pre-existing bug.
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