Jeff King writes:
> I'd be very surprised if this works in practice on most of our current
> test scripts. There are often subtle dependencies on the state left over
> from previous tests. Running the script below up through t3800 (at which
> point I lost patience) reveals 37 test scripts that ar
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 09:02:46AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > There's one subtle thing I didn't mention in the "it is already on stack
> > overflow". If you have a version of git which complains about the null
> > sha1, then the SO advice is already broken. But if the SO works, then
> > you
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:35:01AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > I don't see that splitting it up more hurts this. If we wanted more
> > automatic rearranging or skipping of tests, we would need tests to
> > declare dependencies on their setup. And we would need to be able to
> > declare depen
Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:54:12PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> [setup split across three tests]
>>
>> This is kind of an old-fashioned test, since each step of the setup is
>> treated as a separate test assertion. I don't really mind until we
>> get better automation to ma
Jeff King writes:
>> I found this version more readable than Peff's (albeit slightly).
>
> OK. Do you want to apply with Jonathan's wording, then?
I can do that, as it seems all of us are in agreement.
> There's one subtle thing I didn't mention in the "it is already on stack
> overflow". If yo
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:03:54PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>
> > In other words, why not use something like this?
> >
> > write_index: optionally allow broken null sha1s
> >
> > Commit 4337b58 (do not write null sha1s to on-disk index, 2012-07-28)
> > a
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:54:12PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> [setup split across three tests]
>
> This is kind of an old-fashioned test, since each step of the setup is
> treated as a separate test assertion. I don't really mind until we
> get better automation to make it easy to skip or re
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> In other words, why not use something like this?
>
> write_index: optionally allow broken null sha1s
>
> Commit 4337b58 (do not write null sha1s to on-disk index, 2012-07-28)
> added a safety check preventing git from writing null sha1s into the
>
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 05:58:18AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 11:15:00PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> I was tempted to not involve filter-branch in this commit at all, and
>>> instead require the user to manually invoke
>>>
>>> GIT_ALLOW_NULL_SHA1=1 git filter-branch
9 matches
Mail list logo
