Re: [PATCH 0/25] detecting &&-chain breakage

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

 



On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
> There were a number of false positives, though as a percentage of the
> test suite, probably not many (it's just that we have quite a lot of
> tests).  Most of them were in rather old tests, and IMHO the fixes I did
> actually improved the readability of the result. So overall I think this
> is a very positive change; I doubt it will get in people's way very
> often, and I look forward to having one less thing to worry about
> handling manually in review. The biggest downside is that I may have
> automated Eric Sunshine out of a job. :)

Heh. I won't mind. Thanks for doing a thorough job.

Ironically, one of the broken here-doc &&-links you detected with
--chain-lint and fixed in 4/25 was from a patch from me: 5a9830cb
(t8001/t8002 (blame): add blame -L :funcname tests, 2013-07-17).
--
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]