On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:20 AM Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Aside from identifying a rather significant number of &&-chain breaks, > > repairing those broken chains uncovered genuine bugs in several tests > > which were hidden by missing &&-chain links. Those bugs are also fixed > > by this series. I would appreciate if the following people would > > double-check my fixes: > > > > Stefan Bellar - 8/29 "t7400" and (especially) 13/29 "lib-submodule-update" > > Jonathan Tan - 10/29 "t9001" > > Elijah Newren - 6/29 "t6036" > > Commented on the patch in question; 6/29 looks good. > > I also looked over the rest of the series. Apart from the ones you > specifically called out as needing review by others besides me, and > the final patch which makes me feel like a sed neophyte, all but one > patch looked good to me. I just have a small question for that > remaining patch, which I posted there. I guess you refer to your question[1] about whether test_must_fail() is the correct choice over test_expect_code(). I just responded[2] with a hopefully satisfactory answer. [1]: https://public-inbox.org/git/CABPp-BFmfN6=E+3BAKt-NH5hmU-368shgDnrnkrnMRvKnx07BQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [2]: https://public-inbox.org/git/CAPig+cRTG625H3CF1Zw30vQt2W8uKf1xLxVaQni2YbJ=xAif2g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
