Re: [PATCH tg/add-chmod+x-fix 2/2] t3700-add: protect one --chmod=+x test with POSIXPERM

2016-09-22 Thread Thomas Gummerer
On 09/21, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Sixt writes: > > > But I came to a different conclusion as I said in a message that > > crossed yours. I hope Thomas can pick up the baton again. Sorry for not getting back earlier, my git time is quite limited unfortunately. > Yeah,

Re: [PATCH tg/add-chmod+x-fix 2/2] t3700-add: protect one --chmod=+x test with POSIXPERM

2016-09-21 Thread Johannes Sixt
Am 21.09.2016 um 23:12 schrieb Junio C Hamano: Johannes Sixt writes: But I came to a different conclusion as I said in a message that crossed yours. I hope Thomas can pick up the baton again. Yeah, our mails crossed, apparently, and I do agree with your reasoning. How about

Re: [PATCH tg/add-chmod+x-fix 2/2] t3700-add: protect one --chmod=+x test with POSIXPERM

2016-09-21 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johannes Sixt writes: > But I came to a different conclusion as I said in a message that > crossed yours. I hope Thomas can pick up the baton again. Yeah, our mails crossed, apparently, and I do agree with your reasoning. How about this, then? -- >8 -- From: Johannes Sixt

Re: [PATCH tg/add-chmod+x-fix 2/2] t3700-add: protect one --chmod=+x test with POSIXPERM

2016-09-21 Thread Johannes Sixt
Am 21.09.2016 um 22:47 schrieb Junio C Hamano: -test_expect_success 'file status is changed after git add --chmod=+x' ' - echo "AM foo4" >expected && +test_expect_success 'git add --chmod=[+-]x changes index with newly added file' ' echo foo >foo4 && git add foo4 &&

Re: [PATCH tg/add-chmod+x-fix 2/2] t3700-add: protect one --chmod=+x test with POSIXPERM

2016-09-21 Thread Johannes Sixt
Am 21.09.2016 um 20:12 schrieb Junio C Hamano: Thomas Gummerer writes: I am surprised that add --chmod=+x changes only the index, but not the file on disk!?! I *think* --chmod is mainly thought of as a convenience for git users on a filesystem that doesn't have an

Re: [PATCH tg/add-chmod+x-fix 2/2] t3700-add: protect one --chmod=+x test with POSIXPERM

2016-09-21 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano writes: > ... Comparing the index with the working tree using "status" > is probably not how you would want to do so. A future breakage may > cause the indexed blob name to change by mistake, and status would > happily report difference but you would not

Re: [PATCH tg/add-chmod+x-fix 2/2] t3700-add: protect one --chmod=+x test with POSIXPERM

2016-09-21 Thread Junio C Hamano
Thomas Gummerer writes: >> I am surprised that add --chmod=+x changes only the index, but not >> the file on disk!?! > > I *think* --chmod is mainly thought of as a convenience for git users > on a filesystem that doesn't have an executable flag. So it was > introduced

Re: [PATCH tg/add-chmod+x-fix 2/2] t3700-add: protect one --chmod=+x test with POSIXPERM

2016-09-20 Thread Thomas Gummerer
Hi Johannes, On 09/20, Johannes Sixt wrote: > A recently introduced test checks the result of 'git status' after > setting the executable bit on a file. This check does not yield the > expected result when the filesystem does not support the executable bit > (and core.filemode is false). Skip the

[PATCH tg/add-chmod+x-fix 2/2] t3700-add: protect one --chmod=+x test with POSIXPERM

2016-09-20 Thread Johannes Sixt
A recently introduced test checks the result of 'git status' after setting the executable bit on a file. This check does not yield the expected result when the filesystem does not support the executable bit (and core.filemode is false). Skip the test case. Signed-off-by: Johannes Sixt