Kong Lucien <Lucien.Kong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 3/3] Advices about 'git rm' during conflicts (unmerged paths) more relevant "more relevant" doesn't say much, and your subject line doesn't say it's about "status". What about status: don't suggest "git rm" if not appropriate ? > +test_expect_success 'status when conflicts without rm advice (both modified)' ' How is this different from the other existing tests? Avoid adding redundant tests, they slow down the test suite without added value. > +test_expect_success 'status when conflicts with add and rm advice (deleted by us)' ' > +test_expect_success 'status when conflicts with add and rm advice (deleted by them)' ' You can probably save a few line (and test execution time) by reusing the same repository in the second test, like git reset --hard git checkout master git merge second_branch (i.e. reply the merge, but symmetrically, from the other branch) Perhaps this sould be added to t7060-wtstatus.sh (basic work tree status reporting) instead, which already tests "deleted by us:". Ideally, you could add tests for "deleted by them" and "both deleted" in a first patch, and turn the add/rm into add in the implementation patch. + # Unmerged paths: + # (use "git add/rm <file>..." as appropriate to mark resolution) + # + # deleted by us: main.txt + # To really test the logic, you need to have more than one file in the list (the logic should say "suggest rm if _at least one_ file may need it", but currently, a patch implementing "if _all_ files" would pass the test). -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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