On 12/10, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 9:04 PM Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The 'git worktree' command used to be just another mode in 'git
> > checkout', namely 'git checkout --to'. When the tests for the latter
> > were retrofitted for the former, the test name was adjusted, but the
> > test number was kept, even though the test is testing a different
> > command now. t/README states: "Second digit tells the particular
> > command we are testing.", so 'git worktree' should have a separate
> > number just for itself.
> >
> > Move the worktree tests to t24* to adhere to that guideline. We're
> > going to make use of the free'd up numbers in a subsequent commit.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > t/{t2025-worktree-add.sh => t2400-worktree-add.sh} | 0
> > t/{t2026-worktree-prune.sh => t2401-worktree-prune.sh} | 0
> > t/{t2027-worktree-list.sh => t2402-worktree-list.sh} | 0
> > 3 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > rename t/{t2025-worktree-add.sh => t2400-worktree-add.sh} (100%)
> > rename t/{t2026-worktree-prune.sh => t2401-worktree-prune.sh} (100%)
> > rename t/{t2027-worktree-list.sh => t2402-worktree-list.sh} (100%)
>
> Heh.. I did the same thing (in my unsent switch-branch/restore-files
> series) and even used the same 24xx range :D You probably want to move
> t2028 and t2029 too (not sure if they have landed on 'master')
:) I unfortunately didn't have time to read the
switch-branch/restore-files series in detail, but good to know someone
thought the same way. I started this work before t2028 and t2029
landed on master, so I failed to notice them. But I'll rebase on
master and move these two tests as well, thanks for noticing.
> --
> Duy
