Hi Eric, On Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 2:31 AM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Yes, it does. Thanks!
