Lex Spoon <lex@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From 9cc607667a20317c837afd90d50c078da659b72f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Lex Spoon <lex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:01:15 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] git-p4: Use -m when running p4 changes
All of the above is duplicate and shouldn't be added to the message;
the recipient can pick them up from the e-mail headers.
Please explain what this change intends to do (e.g. Is it a fix? If
so, what is broken without this change? Is it an enhancement? If
so, what cannot be done without this change, and how and why is the
new thing the change enables a good thing?), and why it is a good
idea to use "-m" to realize that objective.
> Signed-off-by: Lex Spoon <lex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Updated to include a test case
>
> git-p4.py | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> t/t9818-git-p4-block.sh | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> create mode 100755 t/t9818-git-p4-block.sh
>
> diff --git a/git-p4.py b/git-p4.py
> index 549022e..2fc8d9c 100755
> --- a/git-p4.py
> +++ b/git-p4.py
> @@ -740,17 +740,43 @@ def
> createOrUpdateBranchesFromOrigin(localRefPrefix = "refs/remotes/p4/",
> silent
> def originP4BranchesExist():
> return gitBranchExists("origin") or
> gitBranchExists("origin/p4") or gitBranchExists("origin/p4/master")
It appears that the patch is severely linewrapped.
> diff --git a/t/t9818-git-p4-block.sh b/t/t9818-git-p4-block.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 0000000..73e545d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/t/t9818-git-p4-block.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +test_description='git p4 fetching changes in multiple blocks'
> +
> +. ./lib-git-p4.sh
> +
> +test_expect_success 'start p4d' '
> + start_p4d
> +'
We do not do one-SP indent. Indent with tab instead.
> +
> +test_expect_success 'Create a repo with 100 changes' '
> + (
> + cd "$cli" &&
> + touch file.txt &&
Do not use "touch" when the only thing you are interested in is that
the file exists and you do not care about its timestamp. I.e. say
>file.txt &&
instead.
> + p4 add file.txt &&
> + p4 submit -d "Add file.txt" &&
> + for i in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
> + do
> + touch outer$i.txt &&
> + p4 add outer$i.txt &&
> + p4 submit -d "Adding outer$i.txt" &&
> + for j in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
> + do
> + p4 edit file.txt &&
> + echo $i$j > file.txt &&
> + p4 submit -d "Commit $i$j"
> + done
> + done
> + )
What happens when any of these commands in the &&-chain fails?
(
cd "$cli" &&
>file.txt &&
p4 ... &&
for i in $(test_seq ...)
do
>"outer$i.txt" &&
p4 ... &&
for j in $(test_seq ...)
do
p4 ... &&
p4 ... || exit
done
done
)
or something like that, perhaps?
--
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