On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 09:08, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:10, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Add a regression test for the git log -M --follow --name-only bug >>> introduced in v1.7.2-rc0~103^2~2 >> >> AKA "we didn't have any tests for log's --name-only *at all*". > > But this is not related to --name-only at all; anything that is "diff" > related, e.g. -p, --stat, --name-status, will share the same issue. I meant that as an extra benefit this is the first test for log + --name-only. >> diff --git a/t/t4202-log.sh b/t/t4202-log.sh >> index 95ac3f8..ff624f4 100755 >> --- a/t/t4202-log.sh >> +++ b/t/t4202-log.sh >> @@ -441,5 +441,14 @@ test_expect_success 'log.decorate configuration' ' >> >> ' >> >> +test_expect_success 'Regression test for v1.7.2-rc0~103^2~2' ' > > This is uninformative and ugly at the same time. > > - Can't we describe the nature of the situation where the old bug > triggers concisely? Perhaps 'show added path under "--follow -M"?' I didn't grok why this was happening, but yeah, that description is better. >> + # Needs an unrelated root commit >> + test_commit README && > > This is not a "root" commit, is it? s/root/first/ >> + >Foo.bar && >> + git add Foo.bar && >> + git commit --allow-empty-message </dev/null && > > Does emptiness of the message matter? No, I was just going for a minimal test case, no commit message is more minimal than having one. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html