Re: [PATCH 5/7] t0000: verify that real_path() works correctly with absolute paths

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> (4) if it only runs once at the very beginning of the test and sets
> a variable that is named prominently clear what it means and lives
> throughout the test, then we do not even have to say "hopefully" and
> appear lazy and loose to the readers of the test who wonders what
> happens when the path does exist; doing so will help reducing the
> noise on the mailing list in the future.

Having said that, I really do not deeply care either way.  If you
are rerollilng the series for other changes, I wouldn't shed tears
even if I do not see any change to this part.
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]