Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

Hi Junio, On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > Okay, so here is the deal: on the development machine where this was > > developed, I do not have gpg installed. So please take this test case just > > to make sure that things

Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

Johannes Schindelin writes: > Okay, so here is the deal: on the development machine where this was > developed, I do not have gpg installed. So please take this test case just > to make sure that things work as intended for the moment. > > Before sending the last

Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

Hi Junio, On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > Of course I agree that it would be very nice to have a test at a later > > stage that does exercise GPG if it is available. But would it really > > be so terrible to have a

Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

Johannes Schindelin writes: > Of course I agree that it would be very nice to have a test at a later > stage that does exercise GPG if it is available. But would it really be so > terrible to have a (simpler, not as complete) test that is exercised > *also* when GPG

Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

Hi Junio, On Fri, 1 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > >> that has a substring '-S"' in it to ensure that the codepath to > >> parse --gpg-sign= on the command line of "rebase", and to the > >> message we see here are working

Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

Johannes Schindelin writes: >> that has a substring '-S"' in it to ensure that the codepath to >> parse --gpg-sign= on the command line of "rebase", and to the >> message we see here are working correctly, without actually checking >> if GPG is invoked at all, or if

Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

Hi Junio, On Wed, 29 Jun 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > To keep the time t3404 requires short (in this developer's Windows > > setup, this single test already takes a painful 8 minutes to pass), > > we avoid a full-blown GPG test and

Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

Johannes Schindelin writes: > To keep the time t3404 requires short (in this developer's Windows > setup, this single test already takes a painful 8 minutes to pass), > we avoid a full-blown GPG test and cop out by verifying the message > displayed to the user upon an

[PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

To keep the time t3404 requires short (in this developer's Windows setup, this single test already takes a painful 8 minutes to pass), we avoid a full-blown GPG test and cop out by verifying the message displayed to the user upon an 'edit' command. Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin