On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 01:55:00PM -0800, Jonathon Mah wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jonathon Mah <m...@jonathonmah.com>
> ---
> t/t5710-info-alternate.sh | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t5710-info-alternate.sh b/t/t5710-info-alternate.sh
> index 5a6e49d..d82844a 100755
> --- a/t/t5710-info-alternate.sh
> +++ b/t/t5710-info-alternate.sh
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ reachable_via() {
>
> test_valid_repo() {
> git fsck --full > fsck.log &&
> + git prune &&
> test_line_count = 0 fsck.log
> }
>
> @@ -47,8 +48,7 @@ test_expect_success 'preparing third repository' \
> 'git clone -l -s B C && cd C &&
> echo "Goodbye, cruel world" > file3 &&
> git add file3 &&
> -git commit -m "one more" file3 &&
> -git repack -a -d -l &&
> +git commit -m "one more without packing" file3 &&
> git prune'
Modifying a test like this makes me a little nervous because now the old
test is not checking the same thing (pruning when we are packed), and
it's not obvious whether the packing was important to the original test.
And it's not clear that this change is testing a totally unrelated
thing. I haven't looked closely, but would it be hard to introduce a
new test that more explicitly checks for the breakage?
-Peff
--
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
