On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:51 AM Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:18 AM Johannes Schindelin
> > wrote:
> > > My suspicion: it is essentially the `(exit 117)` that adds about 100ms to
> > > every of those 67 test cases.
> >
> >
Hi Eric,
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:18 AM Johannes Schindelin
> wrote:
> > I realized yesterday that the &&-chain linting we use for every single
> > test case takes a noticeable chunk of time:
> >
> > $ time ./t0006-date.sh --quiet
> >
On 10/17/18 11:39 AM, Rafael Ascensão wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 03:33:21PM +0200, Daniels Umanovskis wrote:
>> Intended both for scripting and interactive/informative use.
>> Unlike git branch --list, no filtering is needed to just get the
>> branch name.
>
> Are we going forward with
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:18 AM Johannes Schindelin
wrote:
> I realized yesterday that the &&-chain linting we use for every single
> test case takes a noticeable chunk of time:
>
> $ time ./t0006-date.sh --quiet
> real0m20.973s
> $ time ./t0006-date.sh --quiet
Hi Eric,
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:09 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Eric Sunshine writes:
> > > This cleanup "checkout" needs to be encapsulated within a
> > > test_when_finished(), doesn't it? Preferably just after the "git
> > > checkout -b"
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 03:33:21PM +0200, Daniels Umanovskis wrote:
> Intended both for scripting and interactive/informative use.
> Unlike git branch --list, no filtering is needed to just get the
> branch name.
Are we going forward with advertising this as a scriptable alternative?
> + }
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:09 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Eric Sunshine writes:
> > This cleanup "checkout" needs to be encapsulated within a
> > test_when_finished(), doesn't it? Preferably just after the "git
> > checkout -b" invocation.
>
> In the meantime, here is what I'll have in 'pu' on
Eric Sunshine writes:
>> +test_expect_success 'git branch `--show-current` works properly when tag
>> exists' '
>> + cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
>> + branch-and-tag-name
>> + EOF
>> + test_when_finished "git branch -D branch-and-tag-name" &&
>> + git checkout -b
Daniels Umanovskis writes:
> +test_expect_success 'git branch `--show-current` works properly with
> worktrees' '
> + cat >expect <<-\EOF &&
> + branch-one
> + branch-two
> + EOF
> + git checkout branch-one &&
> + git worktree add worktree branch-two &&
> + (
> +
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:34 AM Daniels Umanovskis
wrote:
> When called with --show-current, git branch will print the current
> branch name and terminate. Only the actual name gets printed,
> without refs/heads. In detached HEAD state, nothing is output.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniels Umanovskis
>
When called with --show-current, git branch will print the current
branch name and terminate. Only the actual name gets printed,
without refs/heads. In detached HEAD state, nothing is output.
Intended both for scripting and interactive/informative use.
Unlike git branch --list, no filtering is
11 matches
Mail list logo
