Junio C Hamano wrote: > diff --git a/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh b/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh > index a58406d..c175ef1 100755 > --- a/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh > +++ b/t/t3404-rebase-interactive.sh > @@ -934,6 +934,21 @@ test_expect_success 'rebase --edit-todo can be used to > modify todo' ' > test L = $(git cat-file commit HEAD | sed -ne \$p) > ' > > +test_expect_success 'rebase -i produces readable reflog' '
I don't know if this test is a good idea at all. We never directly check the messages written by a command to the reflog, and I suspect that there is a good reason for this: the format of .git/logs is not guaranteed to be stable, and the messages written by various commands are not guaranteed to be stable either; the only machine-parsing of reflogs we do is very minimal: interpret_nth_prior_checkout() and grab_1st_switch(). A quick $ git grep .git/logs -- t shows that I'm mostly right about this. Why make an exception in the case of rebase -i? In the worst case, the patch atleast needs to be discussed as an independent patch: it's certainly not obvious enough to sneak into this series. I'll submit a re-roll without this hunk. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
