Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Am 27.06.2016 um 09:26 schrieb larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx:
>> --- a/git-p4.py
>> +++ b/git-p4.py
>> @@ -2274,7 +2274,7 @@ class P4Sync(Command, P4UserMap):
>> self.useClientSpec_from_options = False
>> self.clientSpecDirs = None
>> self.tempBranches = []
>> - self.tempBranchLocation = "git-p4-tmp"
>> + self.tempBranchLocation = "refs/git-p4-tmp"
>> self.largeFileSystem = None
>>
>> if gitConfig('git-p4.largeFileSystem'):
>> diff --git a/t/t9801-git-p4-branch.sh b/t/t9801-git-p4-branch.sh
>> index 0aafd03..8f28ed2 100755
>> --- a/t/t9801-git-p4-branch.sh
>> +++ b/t/t9801-git-p4-branch.sh
>> @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git p4 clone complex branches' '
>> test_path_is_file file2 &&
>> test_path_is_file file3 &&
>> ! grep update file2 &&
>> - test_path_is_missing .git/git-p4-tmp
>> + test_path_is_missing .git/ref/git-p4-tmp
>
> This should be .git/refs/git-p4-tmp, no? Otherwise, this does not test
> what it should test.
Yes, and it probably should use "git show-ref --verify" to
future-proof, instead of assuming the file-based ref backend.
>
>> )
>> '
>>
>> @@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ test_expect_success 'git p4 sync changes to two branches in the same changelist'
>> test_path_is_file file2 &&
>> test_path_is_file file3 &&
>> ! grep update file2 &&
>> - test_path_is_missing .git/git-p4-tmp
>> + test_path_is_missing .git/ref/git-p4-tmp
>
> Same here.
>
>> )
>> '
>
> -- Hannes
--
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