On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 10:13 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kaartic Sivaraam writes:
>
> > Moreover, as a consequence of my assumption that the tests don't check
> > for the error messages themselves; I haven't even thought of checking
> > whether the tests or the travis-ci build succeeded as a co
Kaartic Sivaraam writes:
> Moreover, as a consequence of my assumption that the tests don't check
> for the error messages themselves; I haven't even thought of checking
> whether the tests or the travis-ci build succeeded as a consequence of
> my patches that touch "only" the error messages!
Th
On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 13:11 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> It is a bit dissapointing that we do not need to touch tests, as it
> indicates that the logic to diagnose extra arguments as an error has
> no coverage.
Even if there were tests I don't think they would have needed any
updation as most
Kaartic Sivaraam writes:
> I interpreted the "not .. too bad" as a "it makes little sense". So,
> pinged the thread.
Thanks. I think what the patch does (sort of) makes sense.
It is a bit dissapointing that we do not need to touch tests, as it
indicates that the logic to diagnose extra argum
On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 09:21 +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kaartic Sivaraam writes:
>
> I do not even recall what the patches did and if I thought what they
> wanted to do made sense,
I thought you did or may be I misinterpreted the following statement,
On Thursday 17 August 2017 12:58 AM, J
Kaartic Sivaraam writes:
> I was recently searching to find the patches have gone missing in to
> the void for no obvious reason and found this. Should I consider this
> to be "Dropped" in terms of the "What's cooking" emails? or has this
> just not received the required attention?
I do not even
On Mon, 2017-08-21 at 19:06 +0530, Kaartic Sivaraam wrote:
> The error messages shown when the branch command is misused
> by supplying it wrong number of parameters wasn't meaningful.
> That's because it used the the phrase "too many branches"
> assuming all parameters to be "valid" branch names.
Sorry, wrong thread :( Please ignore this.
---
Kaartic
The error messages shown when the branch command is misused
by supplying it wrong number of parameters wasn't meaningful.
That's because it used the the phrase "too many branches"
assuming all parameters to be "valid" branch names. It's not
always the case as exemplified below,
$ git branc
The error messages shown when the branch command is misused
by supplying it wrong number of parameters wasn't meaningful.
That's because it used the the phrase "too many branches"
assuming all parameters to be "valid" branch names. It's not
always the case as exemplified below,
$ git branc
10 matches
Mail list logo