Re: [PATCH v4 42/45] add tests for rebasing merged history

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

 



Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> +#TODO: make order consistent across all flavors of rebase
>>> +test_run_rebase success 'd e n o' ''
>>> +test_run_rebase success 'd e n o' -m
>>> +test_run_rebase success 'd n o e' -i
>>
>> [45/45] would seem to imply that these tests fail as of this patch.  Is
>> that correct?
>>
>> If so, please either squash that change or move the test further up
>> marked as 'failure'.
>
> I won't. The whole purpose of the last patch is to show these tests are fixed.
>
> Martin von Zweigbergk's patch series is independent of this one, I
> merely added it to show the above.

So you would deliberately break a bisection on this test file?

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
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]