Re: t6044 broken on pu

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

 



On 08.05.16 04:21, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@xxxxxx> writes:
>
>> That's true, but the test passes anyway.
> You can also remove the body of the test and replace it with "true"
> and say "the test passes anyway".  Changing the test to use a file
> with only one line is irresponsible, if you do not know the nature
> of expected future bug that requires 10 lines to be there to
> manifest that the test wants to try.
>
> test_seq was invented exactly for the purpose of accomodating
> platforms that lack seq, so using it would probably be the best
> first step.  Updating implementation of test_seq to avoid $PERL
> would be a separate step, if desired (I personally do not think
> that is worth it).
We don't need to invoke perl, when the shell can do that internally ?

May a  simple
 printf "1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n"

be an option ?


--
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]