Re: [PATCH] tests: Introduce test_seq

Johannes Sixt wrote: > Am 04.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Michał Kiedrowicz: > > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I do not have strong > >> opinion on calling this test_seq when it acts differently from seq; > >> it is not confusing enough to make me push something lon

Re: [PATCH] tests: Introduce test_seq

Junio C Hamano wrote: > Tentatively I'll queue this one on top, but I am tempted to squash > this in before merging the topic down. > > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] fixup! tests: Introduce test_seq > > Complex chains of && and || are harder to read when used as > replacement for if/else statemen

[PATCH] tests: Introduce test_seq

;m not sure if it's worth converting them to test_seq. That would introduce running more processes of Perl. Signed-off-by: Michał Kiedrowicz --- Changes since previous version: * Removed "This commit replaces" from commit message * Reworded test_seq description

Re: [PATCH] tests: Introduce test_seq

Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:57:15PM +0200, Michał Kiedrowicz wrote: > > > >> Jeff King wrote: > >> > >>The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD > >>

[PATCH] tests: Introduce test_seq

but I'm not sure if it's worth converting them to test_seq. That would introduce running more processes of Perl. Signed-off-by: Michał Kiedrowicz --- Changes since previous patch: * Added quotes around arguments, allowing `test_seq a z` * Improved test_seq comments

Re: [PATCH] tests: Introduce test_seq

Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:04:50PM +0200, Michał Kiedrowicz wrote: > > > Previous patch didn't support `test_seq 1 50` (I removed it accidentally). > > Our emails just crossed paths. :) Yeah :) > > > +# test_seq is a portable replacement f

[PATCH] tests: Introduce test_seq

but I'm not sure if it's worth converting them to test_seq. That would introduce running more processes of Perl. Signed-off-by: Michał Kiedrowicz --- Previous patch didn't support `test_seq 1 50` (I removed it accidentally). t/perf/perf-lib.sh | 2 +- t/t5551-http-fetch.sh

[PATCH] tests: Introduce test_seq

but I'm not sure if it's worth converting them to test_seq. That would introduce running more processes of Perl during the tests and might increase the total time tests take. Signed-off-by: Michał Kiedrowicz --- > I don't have a strong preference, as there are only two callsites

Re: [PATCH] Fix 'No newline...' annotation in rewrite diffs.

Jeff King peff.net> writes: > - for i in $(seq 1 $GIT_PERF_REPEAT_COUNT); do > + for i in $("$PERL_PATH" -le "print for > 1..$GIT_PERF_REPEAT_COUNT"); do Maybe you could introduce "test_seq" instead. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in