Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> diff --git a/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh b/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh
> index 1342915..a00b689 100755
> --- a/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh
> +++ b/t/t1507-rev-parse-upstream.sh
> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ test_expect_success 'branch@{u} error message when no upstream' '
>
> test_expect_success '@{u} error message when no upstream' '
> cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> - error: No upstream branch found for ${sq}${sq}
> + error: No upstream branch found for ${sq}master${sq}
> fatal: Needed a single revision
> EOF
> test_must_fail git rev-parse --verify @{u} 2>actual &&
I am not sure if saying "... for 'master'" is better or "... for the
current branch" is better. Using different wording reflects the fact that
the user gave "@{u}" and not "master@{u}".
But I do not care too deeply. Either way, it is a vast improvement over
the current "... for ''" output.
And the "detached" case is definitely better.
> @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ test_expect_success 'branch@{u} error message with misspelt branch' '
>
> test_expect_success '@{u} error message when not on a branch' '
> cat >expect <<-EOF &&
> - error: No upstream branch found for ${sq}${sq}
> + error: HEAD does not point to a branch
> fatal: Needed a single revision
> EOF
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