Simon Perrat <simon.perrat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 2012/6/8 Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> "Simon.Cathebras" <Simon.Cathebras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > Do you mean that we should split the third patch into two patches ? >> > For instance:: >> > Patch 3/4: tests for git pull >> > Patch 4/4: tests for git push >> >> Yes, except the title should mention git-remote-mediawiki, of course. >> > > Should we split our test file in two then ? Currently they're all in t9361. The patch I was commenting does t/t9360-git-mediawiki.sh | 265 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ t/t9361-git-mediawiki.sh | 213 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (BTW, you can find a better naming for the files, if one tests clone, then clone should appear in the title, same for push/pull). There's nothing wrong with touching several files in the same commit, but when your commit messages looks like - first file: does this - second file: does that and there's no dependencies, it's usually better to split the commit. -- 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