Jeff King wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] t5516: drop implicit arguments from helper functions
Thanks a lot for this! I just had to s/ $repo_name/ "$repo_name"/ to
fix the quoting.
Will post a re-roll soon.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to m
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I would prefer to see a preparatory patch to teach mk_test/mk_empty
> to _always_ take the new name (i.e. the result of your patch) and
> then do whatever new things on top.
Yes, that sounds like a good way to go.
> By the way, I am planning to _not_ look at new stuff tod
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 07:52:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > I think this is OK, and I do not mind if it gets applied. But what I was
> > hinting at in my earlier mail was that we might want to do this (I have
> > it as a separate patch on top of your 3/6 here, but i
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 07:54:06AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
>
> > mk_empty () {
> > - rm -fr testrepo &&
> > - mkdir testrepo &&
> > + repo_name="$1"
> > + test -z "$repo_name" && repo_name=testrepo
> > + rm -fr $repo_name &&
> > + mkdir $repo_name
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
> mk_empty () {
> - rm -fr testrepo &&
> - mkdir testrepo &&
> + repo_name="$1"
> + test -z "$repo_name" && repo_name=testrepo
> + rm -fr $repo_name &&
> + mkdir $repo_name &&
Your quoting is sloppy in this entire patch X-<.
--
To unsubscr
Jeff King writes:
> I think this is OK, and I do not mind if it gets applied. But what I was
> hinting at in my earlier mail was that we might want to do this (I have
> it as a separate patch on top of your 3/6 here, but it would make more
> sense squashed in):
I would prefer to see a preparator
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 01:22:33PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> mk_test() creates a repository with the constant name "testrepo", and
> this may be limiting for tests that need to create more than one
> repository for testing. To fix this, create a new mk_test_with_name()
> which accepts
Jeff King wrote:
>I
> tend to read the tests in a top-down manner: a test is interesting
> (usually because it fails), and then I want to see what it is doing, so
> I look at any functions it calls, and so forth.
>
> What I usuall
Jeff King writes:
> ... even though it is more typing, I would argue that:
>
> mk_empty testrepo &&
> git push testrepo ...
>
> is better, because the test script is more readable as a unit.
>
> None of this is that huge a deal to me (and yet I seem to have written a
> page about it :) ), but
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:41:57AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> > Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> >> I dunno. The helper functions at the top of this test are already
> >> intimidating, so I guess I am looking for a way to avoid making that
> >> problem worse.
> [...]
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> I dunno. The helper functions at the top of this test are already
>> intimidating, so I guess I am looking for a way to avoid making that
>> problem worse.
[...]
> My patch does not make the situation worse in any way:
Um, yes it does. It
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>
>> mk_test() creates a repository with the constant name "testrepo", and
>> this may be limiting for tests that need to create more than one
>> repository for testing. To fix this, create a new mk_test_with_name()
>> which accepts the reposito
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> mk_test() creates a repository with the constant name "testrepo", and
> this may be limiting for tests that need to create more than one
> repository for testing. To fix this, create a new mk_test_with_name()
> which accepts the repository name as $1. Reimplement mk
13 matches
Mail list logo
