Re: t6044 broken on pu

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 11:36:09AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > > > Yes, I think the comment should just go. Nobody used that alphabet > > form since it was written in d17cf5f3 (tests: Introduce test_seq, > > 2012-08-04). > > > >> I don't really

Re: t6044 broken on pu

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Subject: [PATCH] test-lib-functions.sh: rewrite test_seq without Perl > > Rewrite the 'seq' imitation only with commands and features > that are typically found as built-in in modern POSIX shells, > instead of relying on

Re: t6044 broken on pu

Junio C Hamano writes: > Stop promising that we may allow using "letters"; this would open an > easier reimplementation that does not rely on $PERL, if somebody > later wants to. > > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano And I am not the one who particularly wants

Re: t6044 broken on pu

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Subject: test-lib-functions.sh: remove misleading comment on test_seq > > We never used the "letters" form since we came up with "test_seq" to > replace use of non-portable "seq" in our test script, which we > introduced

Re: t6044 broken on pu

Junio C Hamano writes: > Yes, I think the comment should just go. Nobody used that alphabet > form since it was written in d17cf5f3 (tests: Introduce test_seq, > 2012-08-04). > >> I don't really care either way whether it is replaced or not (at one >> point there were some

Re: t6044 broken on pu

Jeff King writes: > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:02:45PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > >> > I had that thought, too, but I think it would be an error to do so. >> > test_seq is supposed to be a replacement for "seq", which does not >> > understand non-numeric sequences. >> >>

Re: t6044 broken on pu

on ? >> If you were to do that, at least have the decency to make it more >> readable by doing something like: >> >> printf "%s\n" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> >> ;-) >> >> But as I said, as a response to "t6044 broken on pu" bug repo

Re: t6044 broken on pu

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:02:45PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > I had that thought, too, but I think it would be an error to do so. > > test_seq is supposed to be a replacement for "seq", which does not > > understand non-numeric sequences. > > Although, the comment block just above

Re: t6044 broken on pu

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:30:51AM +0200, demerphq wrote: >> > - perl -le 'print for $ARGV[0]..$ARGV[1]' -- "$@" >> > + test_seq_counter__=$1 >> > + while test "$test_seq_counter__" -le $2 >> > + do >> > +

Re: t6044 broken on pu

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:30:51AM +0200, demerphq wrote: > > - perl -le 'print for $ARGV[0]..$ARGV[1]' -- "$@" > > + test_seq_counter__=$1 > > + while test "$test_seq_counter__" -le $2 > > + do > > + echo "$test_seq_counter__" > > +

Re: t6044 broken on pu

the decency to make it more > readable by doing something like: > > printf "%s\n" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > > ;-) > > But as I said, as a response to "t6044 broken on pu" bug report, > s/seq/test_seq/ is the only sensible change. > > Improvin

Re: t6044 broken on pu

; readable by doing something like: > > printf "%s\n" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > > ;-) > > But as I said, as a response to "t6044 broken on pu" bug report, > s/seq/test_seq/ is the only sensible change. > > Improving "test_seq, the alternative to se

Re: t6044 broken on pu

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ;-) But as I said, as a response to "t6044 broken on pu" bug report, s/seq/test_seq/ is the only sensible change. Improving "test_seq, the alternative to seq" is a separate topic. If you have aversion to $PERL, perhaps do them without using anything what is

Re: t6044 broken on pu

On 08.05.16 04:21, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Torsten Bögershausen writes: > >> That's true, but the test passes anyway. > You can also remove the body of the test and replace it with "true" > and say "the test passes anyway". Changing the test to use a file > with only one line is

Re: t6044 broken on pu

Torsten Bögershausen writes: > That's true, but the test passes anyway. You can also remove the body of the test and replace it with "true" and say "the test passes anyway". Changing the test to use a file with only one line is irresponsible, if you do not know the nature of

Re: t6044 broken on pu

On 2016-05-07 14.19, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Torsten Bögershausen writes: > >> The "seq" is not understood by all shells, >> using printf fixes this, >> >> index 20a3ffe..48d964e 100755 >> --- a/t/t6044-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh >> +++

Re: t6044 broken on pu

On 07/05/16 14:15, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > > On 07/05/16 13:19, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Torsten Bögershausen writes: >> >>> The "seq" is not understood by all shells, >>> using printf fixes this, >>> >>> index 20a3ffe..48d964e 100755 >>> ---

Re: t6044 broken on pu

On 07/05/16 13:19, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Torsten Bögershausen writes: > >> The "seq" is not understood by all shells, >> using printf fixes this, >> >> index 20a3ffe..48d964e 100755 >> --- a/t/t6044-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh >> +++

Re: t6044 broken on pu

Torsten Bögershausen writes: > The "seq" is not understood by all shells, > using printf fixes this, > > index 20a3ffe..48d964e 100755 > --- a/t/t6044-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh > +++ b/t/t6044-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ test_description="merges

t6044 broken on pu

The "seq" is not understood by all shells, using printf fixes this, index 20a3ffe..48d964e 100755 --- a/t/t6044-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh +++ b/t/t6044-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ test_description="merges with unrelated index changes" # Commit E: renames