On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:58:53PM +0200, Jakub Narębski wrote:
>
>> I would prefer the following:
>>
>> # A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F --> G --> H
>> # 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
>
> Yeah, that is also more
Jeff King writes:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:58:53PM +0200, Jakub Narębski wrote:
>
>> I would prefer the following:
>>
>> # A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F --> G --> H
>> # 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
>
> Yeah, that is also more visually pleasing.
>
> Here's a
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 03:58:53PM +0200, Jakub Narębski wrote:
> I would prefer the following:
>
> # A --> B --> C --> D --> E --> F --> G --> H
> # 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yeah, that is also more visually pleasing.
Here's a squashable update that uses that and clarifies
W dniu 04.10.2016 o 22:58, Stefan Beller pisze:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:52:19PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>
+# Note: These tests depend on the hard-coded value of 5 as "too
deep". We start
+# the
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 02:43:24PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>> > Hmm. Now I am puzzled, because I _did_ line up them specifically to make
>> > this clear. I put the numbers under the ">" of the arrow. Did I screw up
>> > the
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 02:43:24PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> > Hmm. Now I am puzzled, because I _did_ line up them specifically to make
> > this clear. I put the numbers under the ">" of the arrow. Did I screw up
> > the spacing somehow so that isn't how they look to you? Or are you just
> >
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:52:19PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>> >> >> > +# Note: These tests depend on the hard-coded value of 5 as "too
>> >> >> > deep". We start
>> >> >> > +# the depth at 0 and count links, not repositories,
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:58:54PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:52:19PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> > +# Note: These tests depend on the hard-coded value of 5 as "too
> >> >> >> >
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:52:19PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>> >> >> > +# Note: These tests depend on the hard-coded value of 5 as "too
>> >> >> > deep". We start
>> >> >> > +# the depth at 0 and count links, not repositories,
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:52:19PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> >> >> > +# Note: These tests depend on the hard-coded value of 5 as "too
> >> >> > deep". We start
> >> >> > +# the depth at 0 and count links, not repositories, so in a chain
> >> >> > like:
> >> >> > +#
> >> >> > +# A -> B -> C
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:44:23PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Jeff King wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 10:57:48PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> >
>> >> > diff --git
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 10:57:48PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>
>> > diff --git a/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh b/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh
>> > index 7bc1c3c..b393613 100755
>> > --- a/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh
>> > +++
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:44:23PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 10:57:48PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> >
> >> > diff --git a/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh b/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh
> >> > index
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 10:57:48PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> > diff --git a/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh b/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh
> > index 7bc1c3c..b393613 100755
> > --- a/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh
> > +++ b/t/t5613-info-alternate.sh
> > @@ -39,6 +39,18 @@ test_expect_success 'preparing
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> These tests are just trying to show that we allow recursion
> up to a certain depth, but not past it. But the counting is
> a bit non-intuitive, and rather than test at the edge of the
> breakage, we test "OK" cases in the middle
These tests are just trying to show that we allow recursion
up to a certain depth, but not past it. But the counting is
a bit non-intuitive, and rather than test at the edge of the
breakage, we test "OK" cases in the middle of the chain.
Let's explain what's going on, and explicitly test the
16 matches
Mail list logo