Jon Seymour wrote: > We add a test to check that bisection works on bare repositories > both when --no-checkout is specified explicitly and when it > is defaulted. Yay! > --- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh > +++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh > @@ -592,6 +592,34 @@ test_expect_success 'erroring out when using bad path parameters' ' > grep "bad path parameters" error.txt > ' > > +test_expect_success 'create bare repo' ' > + git clone --bare . bare > +' I'd prefer to see separate clones for the two tests, so if one catastrophically fails it does not affect the other. > + > +test_expect_success 'test bisection on bare repo - --no-checkout specified' ' > + test_when_finished "cd .." && > + cd bare && > + git bisect start --no-checkout && > + git bisect good $HASH1 && > + git bisect bad $HASH4 && > + git bisect run sh -c \ > + "test \$(git rev-list BISECT_HEAD ^$HASH2 --max-count=1 | wc -l) = 0" \ > + >../my_bisect_log.txt && > + grep "$HASH3 is the first bad commit" ../my_bisect_log.txt && > + git bisect reset' I worry that "sh" might not actually be a POSIX shell on some systems. Maybe a subshell could also simplify this. Like so: git clone --bare . bare.nocheckout && ( cd bare && git bisect start --no-checkout && git bisect good $HASH1 && git bisect bad $HASH4 && git bisect run \ eval "test \$(... " \ >../log.nocheckout && git bisect reset ) && grep "$HASH3 is the first bad commit" log.nocheckout > +test_expect_success 'test bisection on bare repo - --no-checkout defaulted' ' Perhaps these could share code by using a function defined at the top of the file. With or without the changes described above, I like it. Thanks. -- 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