Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 03:00:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Santiago Torres <santiago@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > This sounds like a helpful addition to implement. We could update/add >> > tests for compliance on this once the feature is addded and fix the >> > ambiguous behavior in the tests now. >> >> OK, so has everybody agreed what the next step would be? Is the >> patch below a good first step (I still need to get it signed off)? > > Yeah, I think this is the right fix. > >> -- >8 -- >> Subject: t7004, t7030: fix here-doc syntax errors >> From: Santiago Torres <santiago@xxxxxxx> >> >> Jan Palus noticed that some here-doc are spelled incorrectly, >> resulting the entire remainder of the test as if it were data >> slurped into the "expect" file, e.g. in this sequence > > I had trouble parsing this. Perhaps: > > resulting in the entire remainder of the test snippet being slurped > into the "expect" file as if it were data Thanks. Will rephrase. I actually think this uncovers another class of breakage. t7030 tests should be protected with GPG prereq and 'fourth-signed' that is made only with the prereq in the first test will not be found. t7004 probably has the same issue.