Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Carlos Martín Nieto <cmn@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> As a result of making --unset-upstream fail if the given branch >> doesn't exist, I discovered a copy-paste error in on the the tests in >> the patch after it, so I'm resending the whole thing. >> >> The changes from the last reroll are the tightening of the situations >> where git will show an error message (not it's just if the branch is >> new and exists as remote-tracking) which I already sent as a reply in >> the other thread; and making --unset-upstream error out on bad input, >> which I already mentioned above. > > Thanks. > > In addition to "--unset-upstream must fail on i-dont-exist branch" > in [2/3], I am wondering if we would want to also make sure the > command fails when the upstream information is not set for the > branch, i.e. something like the following on top. > > What do you think? > > t/t3200-branch.sh | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git i/t/t3200-branch.sh w/t/t3200-branch.sh > index 1018e8b..a0aaedd 100755 > --- i/t/t3200-branch.sh > +++ w/t/t3200-branch.sh > @@ -393,7 +393,9 @@ test_expect_success 'test --unset-upstream on HEAD' \ > git branch --set-upstream-to my14 && > git branch --unset-upstream && > test_must_fail git config branch.master.remote && > - test_must_fail git config branch.master.merge' > + test_must_fail git config branch.master.merge && > + test_must_fail git branch --unset-upstream > +' Yeah, this looks good, makes sure that it will still behave correctly even if the code path for these two situations diverges. cmn -- 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