On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 06:38:08PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> And the reason for this is that we always told people "don't use seq"
> and they submitted an updated patch. What would we have to do now? We
> have to tell them "don't use seq, use test_seq". Therefore, the patch
> does not accompli
Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 04.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Michał Kiedrowicz:
> > Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> I do not have strong
> >> opinion on calling this test_seq when it acts differently from seq;
> >> it is not confusing enough to make me push something longer that is
> >> different from "seq",
Johannes Sixt writes:
> And the reason for this is that we always told people "don't use seq"
> and they submitted an updated patch. What would we have to do now? We
> have to tell them "don't use seq, use test_seq". Therefore, the patch
> does not accomplish anything useful, IMO.
>
> The functio
Michał Kiedrowicz gmail.com> writes:
> Junio C Hamano pobox.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/t/test-lib-functions.sh b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> > index c8b4ae3..7dc70eb 100644
> > --- a/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> > +++ b/t/test-lib-functions.sh
> > @@ -543,11 +543,12 @@ test_cmp() {
> > # done
> >
Am 04.08.2012 00:09, schrieb Michał Kiedrowicz:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> I do not have strong
>> opinion on calling this test_seq when it acts differently from seq;
>> it is not confusing enough to make me push something longer that is
>> different from "seq", e.g. test_sequence.
>
> I prefer "
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Tentatively I'll queue this one on top, but I am tempted to squash
> this in before merging the topic down.
>
> -- >8 --
> Subject: [PATCH] fixup! tests: Introduce test_seq
>
> Complex chains of && and || are harder to read when used as
> replacement for if/else statemen
Tentatively I'll queue this one on top, but I am tempted to squash
this in before merging the topic down.
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] fixup! tests: Introduce test_seq
Complex chains of && and || are harder to read when used as
replacement for if/else statements, but it is easy to rewrite it
with a
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 03:48:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michał Kiedrowicz writes:
>
> > Jeff King wrote:
> >
> > The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD
> > releases and their derivatives, not to mention antique
> > commercial Unixes.
> >
> > We
Michał Kiedrowicz writes:
> Jeff King wrote:
>
> The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD
> releases and their derivatives, not to mention antique
> commercial Unixes.
>
> We already purged it in b3431bc (Don't use seq in tests, not
> everyone
Jeff King wrote:
The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD
releases and their derivatives, not to mention antique
commercial Unixes.
We already purged it in b3431bc (Don't use seq in tests, not
everyone has it, 2007-05-02), but a few
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:57:15PM +0200, Michał Kiedrowicz wrote:
> >
> >> Jeff King wrote:
> >>
> >>The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD
> >>releases and their derivatives, not to mention antique
> >>comm
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:53:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Wouldn't it be cleaner and readable to write it like this
>
> "$PERL_PATH" -le 'print for $ARGV[0]..$ARGV[1]' "$1" "$2"
>
> by the way?
Yeah, that would be more robust (it's longer to type, which is why I
avoided it in the
Jeff King writes:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:57:15PM +0200, Michał Kiedrowicz wrote:
>
>> Jeff King wrote:
>>
>> The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD
>> releases and their derivatives, not to mention antique
>> commercial Unixes.
>>
>> We alread
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:38:24PM +0200, Michał Kiedrowicz wrote:
> Changes since previous patch:
>
> * Added quotes around arguments, allowing `test_seq a z`
> * Improved test_seq comments
>
> t/perf/perf-lib.sh | 2 +-
> t/t5551-http-fetch.sh | 2 +-
> t/test-lib-functio
Jeff King wrote:
The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD
releases and their derivatives, not to mention antique
commercial Unixes.
We already purged it in b3431bc (Don't use seq in tests, not
everyone has it, 2007-05-02), but a few
Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:04:50PM +0200, Michał Kiedrowicz wrote:
>
> > Previous patch didn't support `test_seq 1 50` (I removed it accidentally).
>
> Our emails just crossed paths. :)
Yeah :)
>
> > +# test_seq is a portable replacement for seq(1).
> > +# It may be used l
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:04:50PM +0200, Michał Kiedrowicz wrote:
> Previous patch didn't support `test_seq 1 50` (I removed it accidentally).
Our emails just crossed paths. :)
> +# test_seq is a portable replacement for seq(1).
> +# It may be used like:
> +#
> +#for i in `test_seq 100`; do
Jeff King wrote:
The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD
releases and their derivatives, not to mention antique
commercial Unixes.
We already purged it in b3431bc (Don't use seq in tests, not
everyone has it, 2007-05-02), but a few
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:57:15PM +0200, Michał Kiedrowicz wrote:
> Jeff King wrote:
>
> The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD
> releases and their derivatives, not to mention antique
> commercial Unixes.
>
> We already purged it in b3431bc (Do
Jeff King wrote:
The seq command is GNU-ism, and is missing at least in older BSD
releases and their derivatives, not to mention antique
commercial Unixes.
We already purged it in b3431bc (Don't use seq in tests, not
everyone has it, 2007-05-02), but a few
20 matches
Mail list logo
