On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 09:53:06PM +0100, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
> (Good to learn about the comm command, thanks )
> What do we think about this:
>
>
> diff --git a/t/t9902-completion.sh b/t/t9902-completion.sh
> index 3cd53f8..82eeba7 100755
> --- a/t/t9902-completion.sh
> +++ b/t/t9902-co
Torsten Bögershausen writes:
> On 20.12.12 21:01, Jeff King wrote:
>> +test_fully_contains () {
>>> + sort "$1" >expect.sorted &&
>>> + sort "$2" >actual.sorted &&
>>> + test $(comm -23 expect.sorted actual.sorted | wc -l) = 0
>>> +}
>
> (Good to learn about the comm command, thanks )
> Wha
On 20.12.12 21:01, Jeff King wrote:
> +test_fully_contains () {
>> +sort "$1" >expect.sorted &&
>> +sort "$2" >actual.sorted &&
>> +test $(comm -23 expect.sorted actual.sorted | wc -l) = 0
>> +}
(Good to learn about the comm command, thanks )
What do we think about this:
diff --git a
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:55:45AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> The beginning of such a change may look like the attached patch.
> [...]
> +test_fully_contains () {
> + sort "$1" >expect.sorted &&
> + sort "$2" >actual.sorted &&
> + test $(comm -23 expect.sorted actual.sorted | wc -l
Junio C Hamano writes:
> Jeff King writes:
>
>> 2. Loosen the test to look for the presence of "checkout", but not
>> fail when other items are present. Bonus points if it makes sure
>> that everything returned starts with "check".
>>
>> I think (2) is the ideal solution in terms of
Jeff King writes:
> 2. Loosen the test to look for the presence of "checkout", but not
> fail when other items are present. Bonus points if it makes sure
> that everything returned starts with "check".
>
> I think (2) is the ideal solution in terms of behavior, but writing it
> may be
On 20.12.12 16:13, Adam Spiers wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:05:38AM +, Adam Spiers wrote:
>>> t/t9902-completion.sh is currently failing for me because I happen to
>>> have a custom shell-script called git-check-email in ~/bin, which
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:05:38AM +, Adam Spiers wrote:
>> t/t9902-completion.sh is currently failing for me because I happen to
>> have a custom shell-script called git-check-email in ~/bin, which is
>> on my $PATH. This is different to a
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 01:05:38AM +, Adam Spiers wrote:
> t/t9902-completion.sh is currently failing for me because I happen to
> have a custom shell-script called git-check-email in ~/bin, which is
> on my $PATH. This is different to a similar-looking case reported
> recently, which was due
t/t9902-completion.sh is currently failing for me because I happen to
have a custom shell-script called git-check-email in ~/bin, which is
on my $PATH. This is different to a similar-looking case reported
recently, which was due to an unclean working tree:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.ver
10 matches
Mail list logo
