On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 07:18:47PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
Ironically, one of the broken here-doc -links you detected with
--chain-lint and fixed in 4/25 was from a patch from me: 5a9830cb
(t8001/t8002 (blame): add blame -L :funcname tests, 2013-07-17).
Heh. I was afraid to look at my
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
Running:
git diff origin origin/jk/test-chain-lint |
perl diff-blame.pl jk/test-chain-lint |
grep EOF
was fun. At least I am not the only one. :)
The parameter to diff-blame.pl should be origin, instead of
jk/test-chain-lint, I presume? You are
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:01:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Running:
git diff origin origin/jk/test-chain-lint |
perl diff-blame.pl jk/test-chain-lint |
grep EOF
was fun. At least I am not the only one. :)
The parameter to diff-blame.pl should be origin, instead of
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 06:04:30AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
It's a lot of patches, and a few of them are long. I tried to group
them by functionality rather than file (though as you can see, some of
the tests were unique enough snowflakes that it made sense to discuss
their issues separately).
This is a cleanup of the -chain lint I posted earlier:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/265613/focus=265859
I don't know who came up with the idea for it originally, but the
concept certainly was floating in the back of my mind from Jonathan's
earlier version that is
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
[...]
There were a number of false positives, though as a percentage of the
test suite, probably not many (it's just that we have quite a lot of
tests). Most of them were in rather old tests, and IMHO the fixes I did
actually
Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 20.03.2015 11:04:
This is a cleanup of the -chain lint I posted earlier:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/265613/focus=265859
I don't know who came up with the idea for it originally, but the
concept certainly was floating in the back
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
I'm actually about to send out a re-roll of that, as I think all of the
review comments have been addressed.
Thanks.
--
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
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
I found 2026 and 5312 to be broken (there may be others that are
excluded in my usual test set) in 'pu'. As to these topics in git
log --first-parent master..pu, my preference is to queue fixups on
the broken-out topics (available at
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:28:11PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
With 1/25 only, I get 163 dubious or failed on current next.
With 1/25 and only chain-lint without running the actual test loads, I
get 213.
So, just as Jeff explained, we don't want a chain-lint-only mode
because it does
Thanks. They applied cleanly on 'master' and all looked sensible.
I found 2026 and 5312 to be broken (there may be others that are
excluded in my usual test set) in 'pu'. As to these topics in git
log --first-parent master..pu, my preference is to queue fixups on
the broken-out topics
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:00:05AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
I found 2026 and 5312 to be broken (there may be others that are
excluded in my usual test set) in 'pu'. As to these topics in git
log --first-parent master..pu, my preference is to
12 matches
Mail list logo
