Ãvar ArnfjÃrà Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > diff --git a/t/t5400-send-pack.sh b/t/t5400-send-pack.sh > index 656ab1a..0357610 100755 > --- a/t/t5400-send-pack.sh > +++ b/t/t5400-send-pack.sh > @@ -90,7 +90,8 @@ test_expect_success 'refuse deleting push with denyDeletes' ' > git config receive.denyDeletes true && > git branch extra master > ) && > - test_must_fail git send-pack ./victim :extra master > + test_must_fail git send-pack ./victim :extra master && > + test_when_finished "(cd victim && git config --unset receive.denyDeletes)" > ' I agree that you are trying to do a good thing, but does this implementation work in practice? If somebody breaks send-pack in such a way that this push succeeds, doesn't the &&-chain will prevent your "when-finished" hook to be registered to begin with? IOW, wouldn't you want to have when-finished as _early_ as possible, before any test that might fail to help us identify a new breakage? The same comment applies to other two hunks in the patch. -- 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