Am 29.05.2012 00:01, schrieb Jon Seymour:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> So I'd vote for just fixing the relative submodule path issues and to
>> not care about the possible issues with URLs. Opinions?
>
> I'll write a minimal patch to solve my relative path problem without
> fixing the invalid/"greedy" submodule url or url normalization issues.
I'd really appreciate that.
> Do you have any comments about whether the failures documented in 2/9
> and 4/9 are worth noting, at least, as weaknesses?
Sure, they document known problems. Me thinks they all should be
squashed into a single patch and submitted separately. The following
three tests from 2/9 are redundant and can be dropped (they are
already handled by the '../../subrepo' case):
'../../../subrepo fails with URL - ssh://hostname/repo' "
'../../../../subrepo fails with with URL - ssh://hostname/repo' "
'../../../../../subrepo fails with URL - ssh://hostname/repo' "
>> (And patches 6-8 contain changes to test cases other than just changing
>> test_expect_failure to test_expect_success which makes reviewing this
>> series unnecessarily hard)
>
> Agree absolutely about patch 8 - I will re-roll with separate tests to
> document the test setup issue I fixed in 8.
>
> The only other changes to tests in 6 and 7 were the removal of
> comments about the actual bad behaviour. Would your preference be that
> I removed these #actual comments completely or that I moved
> documentation of the actual behaviour to the header of the test?
I'd prefer just to see the failure => success changes, so the comments
look superfluous to me and should be dropped from the failure case.
--
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