Re: [PATCH 5/7] t0000: verify that real_path() works correctly with absolute paths

2012-09-08 Thread Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano writes: > (4) if it only runs once at the very beginning of the test and sets > a variable that is named prominently clear what it means and lives > throughout the test, then we do not even have to say "hopefully" and > appear lazy and loose to the readers of the test who wonders w

Re: [PATCH 5/7] t0000: verify that real_path() works correctly with absolute paths

2012-09-08 Thread Junio C Hamano
Michael Haggerty writes: > The possibility is obvious. Are you advocating it? > > I considered that approach, but came to the opinion that it would be > overkill that would only complicate the code for no real advantage, > given that (1) I picked a name that is pretty implausible for an > existi

Re: [PATCH 5/7] t0000: verify that real_path() works correctly with absolute paths

2012-09-08 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 09/07/2012 01:08 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes: > >> From: Michael Haggerty >> >> There is currently a bug: if passed an absolute top-level path that >> doesn't exist (e.g., "/foo") it incorrectly interprets the path as a >> relative path (e.g., returns "$(pwd)/foo").

Re: [PATCH 5/7] t0000: verify that real_path() works correctly with absolute paths

2012-09-06 Thread Junio C Hamano
mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes: > From: Michael Haggerty > > There is currently a bug: if passed an absolute top-level path that > doesn't exist (e.g., "/foo") it incorrectly interprets the path as a > relative path (e.g., returns "$(pwd)/foo"). So mark the test as > failing. > > Signed-off-by: Mic

Re: [PATCH 5/7] t0000: verify that real_path() works correctly with absolute paths

2012-09-06 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 09/05/2012 10:40 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Am 9/4/2012 10:14, schrieb mhag...@alum.mit.edu: >> From: Michael Haggerty >> >> There is currently a bug: if passed an absolute top-level path that >> doesn't exist (e.g., "/foo") it incorrectly interprets the path as a >> relative path (e.g., return

Re: [PATCH 5/7] t0000: verify that real_path() works correctly with absolute paths

2012-09-05 Thread Johannes Sixt
Am 9/4/2012 10:14, schrieb mhag...@alum.mit.edu: > From: Michael Haggerty > > There is currently a bug: if passed an absolute top-level path that > doesn't exist (e.g., "/foo") it incorrectly interprets the path as a > relative path (e.g., returns "$(pwd)/foo"). So mark the test as > failing. >

[PATCH 5/7] t0000: verify that real_path() works correctly with absolute paths

2012-09-04 Thread mhagger
From: Michael Haggerty There is currently a bug: if passed an absolute top-level path that doesn't exist (e.g., "/foo") it incorrectly interprets the path as a relative path (e.g., returns "$(pwd)/foo"). So mark the test as failing. Signed-off-by: Michael Haggerty --- t/t-basic.sh | 12 ++