Thomas Gummerer wrote: > On 09/17, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> The other >> effort implicitly depends on the expected output is kept sorted, but >> this one is more explicit---I tend to prefer this approach as tools >> and automation is easier to maintain than having to remember that >> the source must be sorted. > > I'm happy going with either patch, but if we want to go with mine, I'd > like to make sure Todd is credited appropriately, as he sent a very > similar patch first. Not sure what the appropriate way here is > though? Thanks for asking. Credit is a subject that is dear to my heart. You can for example use Reported-by: Todd Zullinger <tmz@xxxxxxxxx> to credit him for the patch and analysis that appears to have helped with reviews (and to signal that this fixes the bug he reported). [...] >>> --- a/t/t5551-http-fetch-smart.sh >>> +++ b/t/t5551-http-fetch-smart.sh >>> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ test_expect_success 'dumb clone via http-backend respects namespace' ' >>> cat >cookies.txt <<EOF >>> 127.0.0.1 FALSE /smart_cookies/ FALSE 0 othername othervalue >>> EOF >>> -cat >expect_cookies.txt <<EOF >>> +cat <<EOF | sort >expect_cookies.txt Should this be sort >expect_cookies.txt <<\EOF ? That is simpler since it avoids a pipe and means the reader doesn't have to look out for shell metacharacters like $ inside the text. Bonus points if this kind of setup moves to inside the test (using <<-\EOF), which can make the test script easier to read. Thanks and hope that helps, Jonathan
