Hello Johannes, W dniu 31.08.2016 o 20:36, Johannes Schindelin pisze: > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Jakub Narębski wrote: >> W dniu 29.08.2016 o 10:04, Johannes Schindelin pisze: > I am of the opinion that overzealous checking of certain implementation > details is something to be avoided.
I agree. >>> Therefore let's just get rid of the test that wants to verify that this >>> limitation is still in place, in preparation for the upcoming work to >>> teach the sequencer to do rebase -i's work. >> >> Is it "upcoming work" as in one of the patches in this series? >> If so, which patch? > > I left this a little vague, didn't I? ;-) > > The problem is that the `git-rebase-todo` most definitely does *not* want > to be restricted to a single command. > > So if you must have a patch that disagrees with this overzealous check, > the "revamp todo parsing" one is probably the first. But it is better to > think of this at a higher level than just patches: it is wrong to limit > the todo script to contain only identical commands. I see. Right. I wonder: would 'git cherry-pick --continue' be able to finish 'git revert', and vice versa, then? Or 'git sequencer --continue'? >>> diff --git a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh >>> b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh >>> index 7b7a89d..6465edf 100755 >>> --- a/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh >>> +++ b/t/t3510-cherry-pick-sequence.sh >>> @@ -459,17 +459,6 @@ test_expect_success 'malformed instruction sheet 1' ' >>> test_expect_code 128 git cherry-pick --continue >>> ' >>> >>> -test_expect_success 'malformed instruction sheet 2' ' >> >> Hmmm... the description is somewhat lacking (especially compared to >> the rest of test), anyway. >> >> BTW. we should probably rename 'malformed instruction sheet 2' >> to 'malformed instruction sheet' if there are no further such >> tests after this removal, isn't it? > > No, we cannot rename it after this patch because the patch removes it ;-) > (It is not a file name but really a label for a test case.) Ooops. What I wanted to say that after removing the test case named 'malformed instruction sheet 2' we should also rename *earlier* test case from 'malformed instruction sheet 1' to 'malformed instruction sheet', as it is now the only 'malformed instruction sheet *' test case.
