Re: [PATCH] tests: introduce test_unset_prereq, for debugging

SZEDER Gábor writes: >> For convenience, the following two methods are now supported ways to >> pretend that a prereq is not met: >> >> test_set_prereq !GPG >> >> and >> >> test_unset_prereq GPG > > I'm not sure this is the right way to do this. > > I wanted to run the whole test sui

Re: [PATCH] tests: introduce test_unset_prereq, for debugging

> While working on the --convert-graft-file test, I missed that I was > relying on the GPG prereq, by using output of test cases that were only > run under that prereq. That GPG vs --convert-graft-file thing really does have a bit of a fallout, doesn't it? I'm at five patches and possibly countin

Re: [PATCH] tests: introduce test_unset_prereq, for debugging

Johannes Schindelin writes: > While working on the --convert-graft-file test, I missed that I was > relying on the GPG prereq, by using output of test cases that were only > run under that prereq. > > For debugging, it was really convenient to force that prereq to be > unmet, but there was no eas