On 7/28/2014 4:52 PM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Tanay Abhra <tanayabh@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> +test_expect_success 'check line errors for malformed values' ' >> + mv .git/config .git/config.old && >> + test_when_finished "mv .git/config.old .git/config" && >> + cat >.git/config <<-\EOF && >> + [alias] >> + br >> + EOF >> + test_expect_code 128 git br 2>result && >> + grep "fatal: bad config file line 2 in .git/config" result >> +' > > This is PATCH 4, and it tests a bug fixed in PATCH 1. It would have > eased review to group both patches, either > > PATCH 1: introduce test_expect_failure test to demonstrate the failure Didn't Junio comment that he wouldn't recommend inserting a test_expect_failure for new tests and then flipping them after in the series. > PATCH 2: fix the bug and change test_expect_failure to test_expect_success > > Or putting both in the same patch. > Much better, thanks for the advice. > I think the series is OK like this, my comment is just to be read as > "next time, here's how to do better". > -- 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