Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] t3701: don't hard code sha1 hash values

Phillip Wood writes: > Keeping the permission bits makes sense (I'd not thought of them when > I created the patch) as we want to check that the file has the correct > permissions. As for the all-zero object name, is it really worth > leaving it in - if a file has been

Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] t3701: don't hard code sha1 hash values

On 20/02/18 17:39, Junio C Hamano wrote: Phillip Wood writes: From: Phillip Wood Purge the index lines from diffs so we're not hard coding sha1 hash values in the expected output. The motivation of this patch is clear, but all-zero

Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] t3701: don't hard code sha1 hash values

Phillip Wood writes: > From: Phillip Wood > > Purge the index lines from diffs so we're not hard coding sha1 hash > values in the expected output. The motivation of this patch is clear, but all-zero object name for missing side of deletion

Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] t3701: don't hard code sha1 hash values

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Phillip Wood wrote: > Purge the index lines from diffs so we're not hard coding sha1 hash > values in the expected output. Perhaps the commit message could provide a bit more explanation about why this is a good idea. For instance,

[PATCH v2 4/9] t3701: don't hard code sha1 hash values

From: Phillip Wood Purge the index lines from diffs so we're not hard coding sha1 hash values in the expected output. Signed-off-by: Phillip Wood --- t/t3701-add-interactive.sh | 32 1 file changed, 12