Hey Eric,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Pranit Bauva wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Eric Sunshine
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote:
diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisec
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Pranit Bauva wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote:
>>> diff --git a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh
>>> @@ -894,4 +894,21 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect start
Hey Eric,
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote:
>> This is not an improvement in the test coverage but it helps in making
>> it explicit as to what exactly would be the error as other tests are
>> focussed on testing other thin
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Pranit Bauva wrote:
> This is not an improvement in the test coverage but it helps in making
> it explicit as to what exactly would be the error as other tests are
> focussed on testing other things.
It's not clear why you consider this as *not* improving test cove
This is not an improvement in the test coverage but it helps in making
it explicit as to what exactly would be the error as other tests are
focussed on testing other things.
Mentored-by: Lars Schneider
Mentored-by: Christian Couder
Signed-off-by: Pranit Bauva
---
I faced this problem while con
5 matches
Mail list logo
