On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Isn't what the test expects bogus in the first place? I'd suggest
> removing the test as "pointless waste of resource".
>
> Comments?
>
> -- >8 --
Yes, toss it; I find your arguments below compelling.
> Manual merge resolution by users fu
Elijah Newren writes:
> Yeah, the t6036 testcase 'git detects conflict w/
> criss-cross+contrived resolution' could be made to pass by tweaking
> the conflict markers. In fact, any tweak would make it appear to
> pass, but the test could be updated to still fail by updating the
> contrived resol
Ben Woosley writes:
> These know breakages:
>
> ok 50 - rebase -m --onto --root
> ok 54 - rebase -m without --onto --root with disjoint history
>
> Have to do with rebasing a root/orphan branch with the -m flag,
> which defaults to -- merge=recursive, which is the case the patch fixed.
>
> Here a
Ramsay Jones ramsayjones.plus.com> writes:
>
> Hi Ben, Junio,
>
> Tonight, the testsuite passed with a couple of 'unexpected passes', viz:
>
> In the first case, t3421-*.sh, git bisect fingered commit f32ec670
> ("git-rebase--merge: don't include absent parent as a base", 20-04-2016).
>
> ATB,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Ramsay Jones
wrote:
> Hi Ben, Junio,
>
> In the second case, t6036-*.sh, git bisect fingered commit b61f9d6e
> ("ll-merge: use a longer conflict marker for internal merge", 14-04-2016).
Yeah, the t6036 testcase 'git detects conflict w/
criss-cross+contrived resolu
Hi Ben, Junio,
Tonight, the testsuite passed with a couple of 'unexpected passes', viz:
$ tail -17 ptest-out
[13:24:29]
All tests successful.
Test Summary Report
---
t3421-rebase-topology-linear.sh (Wstat: 0 Tests: 76 Failed: 0)
TODO passed: 50, 54
t6036-recu
6 matches
Mail list logo
