Paul Tan <pyokagan@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Since efb779f (merge, pull: add '--(no-)log' command line option, > 2008-04-06) git-pull supported the (--no-)log switch and would pass it > to git-merge. > > 96e9420 (merge: Make '--log' an integer option for number of shortlog > entries, 2010-09-08) implemented support for the --log=<n> switch, which > would explicitly set the number of shortlog entries. However, git-pull > does not recognize this option, and will instead pass it to git-fetch, > leading to "unknown option" errors. > > This patch series implements a failing test that demonstrates the above, > and teaches git-pull to handle the switch --log=<n>. Looks good. One advice; for a small patch like this one (and the "pull.ff vs merge.ff" one, too), it is not necessary or even desirable to do a two-step "first add a failure test and then another patch to fix and flip the expectation" series. Just do the fix and add a test to expect success. After all, the primary reason why we add test is *not* for you to demonstrate that what you did works as expected. It is to catch other people breaking what you did in the future. Thanks. -- 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