Hey Eric, On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.ba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunsh...@sunshineco.com> >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Pranit Bauva <pranit.ba...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh >>>> @@ -894,4 +894,21 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect start takes options and >>>> revs in any order' ' >>>> +test_expect_success 'git bisect reset cleans bisection state properly' ' >>>> + git bisect reset && >>>> + git bisect start && >>>> + git bisect good $HASH1 && >>>> + git bisect bad $HASH4 && >>>> + git bisect reset && >>>> + test -z "$(git for-each-ref "refs/bisect/*")" && >>> >>> I wonder if this would be more easily read as: >>> >>> git for-each-ref "refs/bisect/*" >actual && >>> test_must_be_empty actual && >> >> I just tried to imitate what the test t6030 previously had (a lot of >> occurrences). Should I still change it to your specified format? >> Should I also change the others as a side cleanup "while I am at it"? > > No, if the 'test -z "$(...)"' is already used heavily in that script, > just stick with it. As for a side cleanup, perhaps if you have time > later on, but don't let it derail your project timeline. It's not that > important.
Sure! I can mark it as "to be cleaned up after GSoC" Regards, Pranit Bauva -- 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
