Re: [PATCH 2/2] t3404: add a test for the --gpg-sign option

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

 



Hi Junio,

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > Okay, so here is the deal: on the development machine where this was
> > developed, I do not have gpg installed. So please take this test case just
> > to make sure that things work as intended for the moment.
> >
> > Before sending the last rebase--helper patch series, I will make sure to
> > add a real test that requires gpg, and submit that, too.
> >
> > Deal?
> 
> I do not particularly care if the latter one happens.
> 
> The only thing I care about is that the earlier round documents that
> we know we probably should test the real driving of the GPG program,
> but we deliberately do not do so in the series, and hint that such
> an enhancement can happen later.
> 
> That might even entice others to help writing a test or two ;-)

Okay. I tried my hand at editing the commit message, and threw two more
tests into the patch series for good measure. Will send out v2 once the
test suite passed (it's still running).

Thanks,
Dscho
--
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]