On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:40:58PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> Add tests rebasing a linear branch topology to linear rebase tests
> added in 2aad7cace2 ("add simple tests of consistency across rebase
> types", 2013-06-06).
I had trouble parsing this. Did you mean s/topology to/topology, similar
to/?
> These tests are duplicates of two surrounding tests that do the same
> with tags pointing to the same objects. Right now there's no change in
> behavior being introduced, but as we'll see in a subsequent change
> rebase can have different behaviors when working implicitly with
> remote tracking branches.
It took me a while to figure out what was new in these tests. Maybe:
These tests are duplicates of two surrounding tests, but with one
change: the existing tests refer to objects by their tag names, but
here we'll use branches (pointing at the same objects).
But then I'm left wondering why that's important.
> While I'm at it add a --fork-point test, strictly speaking this is
> redundant to the existing '' test, as no argument to rebase implies
> --fork-point. But now it's easier to grep for tests that explicitly
> stress --fork-point.
That makes sense.
> +test_expect_success 'setup branches and remote tracking' '
> + git tag -l >tags &&
> + for tag in $(cat tags)
> + do
> + git branch branch-$tag $tag || return 1
> + done &&
I don't think we need this extra tmpfile and cat, do we? I.e.,
for tag in $(git tag -l)
would work. We should probably avoid depending on the exact output of
the porcelain "tag", though. Maybe:
git for-each-ref \
--format='create refs/heads/branch-%(refname:strip=2) %(objectname)' \
refs/tags |
git update-ref --stdin
which has the added bonus of using a constant number of processes.
-Peff
