On 19.03.2014, at 11:53, Max Horn <m...@quendi.de> wrote: > > On 17.03.2014, at 18:01, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Torsten Bögershausen <tbo...@web.de> writes: >> >>> On 2014-03-14 23.09, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>>> * ap/remote-hg-skip-null-bookmarks (2014-01-02) 1 commit >>>> - remote-hg: do not fail on invalid bookmarks >>>> >>>> Reported to break tests ($gmane/240005) >>>> Expecting a reroll. >>> I wonder what should happen here. >>> The change breaks all the tests in test-hg-hg-git.sh >>> (And the breakage may prevent us from detecting other breakages) >>> >>> The ideal situation would be to have an extra test case for the problem >>> which we try to fix with this patch. >
[...] > The (or at least "a") root cause has actually been discovered. Would a patch > that adds an xfail test case for it be acceptable? > > As to the why the proposed patch causes test failures: I think this is due to > the fact that remote-hg inserts a fake "master" branch (resp. "bookmark" in > the hg terminology). Now, in those test cases, a hg repository gets created > that actually contains a "null" bookmark named "master". When the proposed > fix for the problem is added, this bookmarks gets ignored. But at that point, > remote-hg already determined that there is a hg bookmark named "master", and > adjusts how it works accordingly -- when we then remove that bookmarks, > things go awry. > > But I might be wrong here, and in any case, did not yet have time to come up > with a proper fix. Actually, scratch that, I just came up with a fix, and also tests. Will submit shortly. I'd still like to know whether it is OK to submit further patches with (x?)failing test cases?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
