On 10/14/2019 11:38 AM, James Coglan wrote: > On 13/10/2019 07:56, Jeff King wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 06:04:21PM +0100, James Coglan wrote: >> >>>> I should have noticed in your earlier commits, but why don't you keep >>>> the output inside the test suite? You can start with "cat >expect <<-EOF" >>>> to have it ignore leading whitespace. Sorry if there's something else about >>>> this that is causing issues. >>> >>> I was following a pattern used in t/t4202-log.sh. I believe it was >>> easier to debug these tests with the setup and expectations split into >>> separate blocks, but I wouldn't be opposed to merging them. >> >> Some of the older tests used that style, but we've been slowly >> modernizing (I know, it's hard to pick up the style by example in such >> cases!). The usual style these days is making sure everything goes in a >> test_expect_* block, with "<<-" to indent here-documents. >> >> Another minor style nit that you picked up from t4202: >> >>>>> +cat > expect <<\EOF >> >> We'd omit the space after ">" here. > > Thanks, I've now made the style changes you've suggested on my branch. How > should I go about sharing the current state of my patch series after I've > incorporated all the changes suggested here? Should I post them as replies on > this thread, or start a new pull request via GitGitGadget?
Since you sent v1 via GitGitGadget, all you need to do is add another "/submit" comment on the same PR and it will send a v2 to this thread. It will auto-generate the range-diff from v1 and append it to your cover letter. -Stolee
